Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONREG -001
WETLAND RAPID ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE(WRAP)
Raymond E. Miller Jr. , Senior Environmental AnalystBoyd E. Gunsalus, Staff Environmental Analyst
September 1997(Second Edition, April 1999)
updated August, 1999
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DIVISIONREGULATION DEPARTMENT
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
ABSTRACT
The Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) is a rating index developed by the South FloridaWater Management District to assist the regulatory evaluation of mitigation sites (created, restored,enhanced or preserved) that are permitted through the District’s Management and Storage of SurfaceWaters or Environmental Resource Permit processes. The objectives of WRAP are: 1. to establish anaccurate, consistent, and timely regulatory tool; 2. to track trends over time (land use vs. wetlandimpacts); and 3. to offer guidance for environmental site plan development. WRAP evaluation is arapid assessment meant to be used within the limited timeframes of the regulatory process. Test resultsof the WRAP procedure showed it to be highly repeatable and an effective training tool for biologists.As additional data are collected, further analysis will be conducted in an attempt to establish arelationship between land use and wetland function.
Key Words. wetland assessment, mitigation, wetland function, anthropogenic impacts, wetlandevaluation, land use impacts, habitat assessment.
-i-
-ii-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) is a rating index developed to assist in the regulatoryevaluation of wetland sites that have been created, enhanced, preserved, or restored through theDistrict’s Management and Storage of Surface Waters or Environmental Resource Permit processes.This standardized rating index can be used in combination with professional judgment to provide anaccurate and consistent evaluation of wetland sites.
The WRAP rating index establishes a numerical ranking for individual ecological and anthropogenicfactors (variables) that can strongly influence the success of mitigation projects. The numerical outputfor the variables is then used to evaluate the current wetland condition. The rating index can be used toevaluate a wide range of wetland/upland systems (e.g., emergent marsh, wet prairie, hardwood swamp,wet pine flatwoods, etc.) but it is not intended to compare different wetland community types (i.e.,marsh to wet prairie) to each other.
Use of the WRAP rating index is intended to accomplish a number of objectives: to establish a simple,accurate, consistent and timely regulatory tool; to track trends over time (land use vs. wetlandimpacts); and to offer guidance for environmental site plan development.
WRAP is not a substitution for applied research science. It is a tool that is to be used by the regulatorycommunity to ensure consistency and accuracy when evaluating a site during the regulatory process ofresource permitting and post permit compliance. WRAP can be used as a tool to document baselineinformation for a site prior to development activities. WRAP input data consist primarily of fieldobservations and professional experience.
WRAP variables include the following:
- Wildlife Utilization- Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy - Wetland Vegetative Ground Cover- Adjacent Upland Support/Wetland Buffer- Field Indicators of Wetland Hydrology- Water Quality Input and Treatment Systems
Evaluation of a wetland site requires office preparation as well as the field investigation. Officepreparation includes obtaining aerial maps, identifying the project boundaries and adjacent landsuses, and identifying on-site wetland areas. In addition, the evaluator should attempt to locate anyreferences to on-site hydrology, soils, site management, seasonal variability, wildlife studies,rainfall data and any other pertinent information.
Methodology for the Habitat Assessment Variable is a series of discussions - one for each WRAPassessment variable. Following each variable description is a rating index containing a set of calibrationdescriptions and corresponding score points. A score of 3 is considered the best a system can functionand 0 is for a system that is severely impacted and is exhibiting negligible attributes.
-iii-
Each system must be evaluated on its own attributes and is not to be compared to a different type ofsystem (i.e. wet prairie vs. marsh vs. cypress dome). An evaluator also has the option to score eachvariable in half (0.5) increments. This provides the flexibility to score a variable that is not accuratelydescribed or fitted by the calibration description. Half increments are utilized on the point scale from0.5 through 2.5. Each applicable variable is scored: the scores are totaled (∑V) and then ∑V is dividedby the total of the maximum score for that variable (∑Vmax). The final rating score for "HabitatAssessment Variables" will be expressed as a number between 0 and 1.
WRAP has been tested statistically and found to be a repeatable procedure. A total of 303 data pointswas used in the preliminary testing of WRAP. This included 81 different wetland sites with between 3-5 independent evaluators per site, 8 different wetland communities and 19 land use designations.Analysis for multicollinearity among the variables yielded no significant correlation.
Ten land use designations were originally selected in the attempt to determine the degree of impactassociated with the wetland variables identified in WRAP. The ten land use designations were asfollows:
• Agriculture• High Intensity Commercial• Highways• Industrial• Institutional• Low Density Residential• Low Intensity Commercial• Multi-Family Residential• Recreational/open space• Single-Family Residential
Once the testing of WRAP was complete it became apparent that for most land uses the dataset wasinadequate to make any inferences with regard to land use associated with wetland impacts. Inaddition, the testing of WRAP identified as many as eight additional land uses that were not originallyincluded. The current list of WRAP land use designations now includes:
• Citrus Grove• Dairy and Feedlot• Golf Course• High Intensity Commercial• Highways (low volume and high volume)• Improved Pasture• Industrial• Institutional• Low Density Residential• Low Intensity Commercial• Mining• Moderately Intensive Commercial• Multi-Family Residential•
-iv-
• Open space / Natural Undeveloped Areas• Recreational• Row Crop• Single-Family Residential• Unimproved pasture / Rangeland• Sugarcane
As additional data are collected, further analysis will be conducted in an attempt to establish arelationship between land use and wetland function.
The overall objective in the development of WRAP is to utilize as much information as possible, bothfrom literature reviews and professional experience, and organize it in the form of a simple but accuraterating index. In order for a functional assessment procedure to be accepted by the regulatorycommunity, the procedure has to be simple enough to use without collecting time-consuming field dataand must be able to be completed within a relatively short time period.
-v-
-vi-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There have been numerous individuals who have assisted over the last five years in thedevelopment, testing and review of the Wetlands Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP). As theAuthors of WRAP, we would like to extend our gratitude to the following individuals:
Kim Fikoski - SFWMD Steve Krupa - SFWMD Dr. James Karr- University of Washington Cynthia Plockelman - SFWMD Dr. Leska Fore – formerly University of Washington Robert M. Brown - SFWMDLisa Grant - SJRWMD Steven Hill - SFWMDRalph Fanson - SFWMD Dr. Garth Redfield - SFWMD Beth Kacvinsky - SFWMD Dr. Dan Austin - FL Atlantic Univ. Lorne Malo - SJRWMD Dr. Alex Marsh - FL Atlantic Univ. Brent Nicholas - SFWMD Dr. Nick Aumen - SFWMDBuddy Robson - SFWMD James Beever, III - FG&FWFCHal Herbst - SFWMD Peter Merritt - TCRPCDeborah Marzella - SFWMD Kathy Trott - ACOEJami McCormick - formerly SFWMD Anita Bain - SFWMDDawn Dowling - SFWMD Ginger Sinn - formerly SFWMDNatalie Hardman – formerly SJRWMD Greg Sawka – SFWMDEd Edmundson - SFWMD John Vance - NRCSDon Medellin - SFWMD Rob Robbins - SFWMDStacy Myers - SFWMD Mia Van Horn - formerly SFWMDDr. Fred Sklar – SFWMD Patricia Sime - SFWMDDr. Dale Gawlik – SFWMD Brad Rieck - USF&WSKen Rutchey – SFWMD Jon HillenLes Vilchek – SFWMD Tori Agramonte - ACOEDr. Zhenquan Chen – SFWMD Chuck Schnepel - ACOEMike Slayton – SFWMD Marie Burns - ACOESusan Elfers - SFWMD Bob Paulson - ACOEJohn Lesman - SFWMD Linda Ferrell - ACOEBob Goodrick - SFWMD (retired) Dick Roberts - FDEPDr. David Black – SFWMD Pete David - SFWMDDr. Eric Flaig – SFWMD Luis Colon - SFWMDLaura Sowers - FDOTAnn Broadwell - FDOTPat Webster - FDOTJeff Weller - FDOTHoward Yamataki - NRCSDr. Susan Gray - SFWMDEd Cronyn - SFWMDSteve Mortellaro - SFWMDDr. Doug Shaw - SFWMDAnn Ertman - FDEP
-vii-
-viii-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ i
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................... vii
Glossary...................................................................................................................................... xi
1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Methodology...................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Methodology for using WRAP............................................................................ 3
2.2 Methodology for Scoring and Assessing Habitat Variables............................. 5
2.2.1.1 Wildlife Utilization................................................................................ 6
2.2.1.2 Wildlife Utilization Rating index ......................................................... 7
2.2.2.1 Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy ..................................................... 8
2.2.2.2 Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy Rating index............................. 10
2.2.3.1 Wetland Vegetative Ground Cover................................................... 11
2.2.3.2 Wetland Vegetative Ground Cover of Rating index........................ 12
2.2.4.1 Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer ..................................................... 13
2.2.4.2 Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer Rating index.............................. 15
2.2.5.1 Field Indicators of Wetland Hydrology ............................................ 16
2.2.5.2 Field Indicators of Wetland Hydrology Rating index...................... 18
2.2.6.1 Water Quality Input and Treatment ................................................ 19
2.2.6.2 Water Quality Input and Treatment Rating index.......................... 21
2.3 Description of Field Data Sheet......................................................................... 23
2.3.1 Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure Field Data sheet................. 25
-ix-
3.0 Objectives of Testing the WRAP Procedure.................................................................. 27
3.1 Design Protocol for WRAP Variable Calibration................................. 27
3.2 Results .................................................................................................... 29
4.0 Summary ......... .............................................................................................................. 31
5.0 Selected References ......................................................................................................... 33
Appendix A - Species Habitat Requirement Table ........................................................... A-1
Appendix B - Habitat Community Profiles.......................................................................... B-1
Appendix C - Common Freshwater Fishes of Southern Florida........................................ C-1
Appendix D - Common Aquatic Insect Taxa...................................................................... D-1
Appendix E - Common Exotic and Nuisance Plant Species Found in Wetlands of South Florida ................................................................................................ E-1
Appendix F - WRAP Dataset ...............................................................................................F-1
Appendix G - Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System ................ G-1
-x-
GLOSSARY
Agriculture – the science or art of cultivating the soil, producing crops, or raising livestock.
Anthropogenic activities – relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature.
Appropriate plant species - plant species which are appropriate for a given community type (i.e.,Rhynchosphora tracyii in a wet prairie, Nymphaea odorata in a deepwater marsh).
Canopy - the plant stratum composed of all woody plants and palms with a trunk four inches orgreater in diameter at breast height (4.5'), except vines.
Coppicing – vegetative regrowth from a tree stump (e.g., cypress) after impacts from silvaculture ortimbering activities.
Decreased hydroperiod - a decrease in the annual period of inundation, resulting in a change in theplant community composition and structure. The effect is usually an increase of transitional and uplandplant species.
Desirable plant species - native plant species that are appropriate for a specific community type andprovide benefits to wildlife in the forms of food, cover, and nesting potential.
Direct impacts - physical acts such as dredging or filling of wetlands.
Design protocol – the design of a scientific experiment or treatment.
Dry detention areas - created impoundments with a bottom elevation of at least one foot abovecontrol elevation of the area. These impoundments dry out after a specific period of time, typicallywithin 48 hours.
Duration of inundation – period of time inundation occurs on an annual basis.
Exotic plant species - plant species that are non-native, purposefully or accidentally introduced byhumans to a geographic area. Many are invasive in nature and disrupt native plant communities.
Freshly mulched created mitigation area - the spreading of hydric soils (with viable native seedbank present) across a graded, newly constructed mitigation area.
Grass swales - a linear depression, usually designed to capture, store, and convey stormwater runoff.
Ground cover - the plant stratum composed of all plants not found in the canopy or subcanopy.
Heavily impacted – impacted by human activities to such a degree as to reduce significantly thefunctionality of a system.
-xi-
High intensity commercial - land uses consisting of commercial with high levels of traffic volume.Traffic is constantly moving in and out of the area; including downtown areas, commercial office sitesand regional malls.
High intensity land use - intensive agricultural operations such as dairy farming (including feedlots),and high intensity commercial projects. These land uses are significantly disruptive to wetland systemsthrough direct and indirect impacts.
High volume highway - major road facilities (i.e., 4, 6, and 8-lane) such as interstate highways, majorarteries and thoroughfares. Moderate to heavy traffic.
Hydroperiod - annual period of inundation.
Hydrological indicators - indicators that may be used as evidence of inundation or saturation whenevaluated with meteorological information, surrounding topography, and reliable hydrological data.Indicators include algal mats, aquatic mosses, aquatic plants, aufwuchs (microscopic attachedorganisms), basal scarring, drift lines, elevated lichen lines, evidence of aquatic fauna, morphologicalplant adaptations, secondary flow channels, sediment deposition, vegetated tussocks and water marks.
Hydrology - water depth, flow patterns, and duration and frequency of inundation as influenced byprecipitation, surface runoff and groundwater.
Impervious surface - surfaces which do not allow for the percolation of water (e.g., asphalt parkinglots and roads, rooftops).
Improved pasture – rangeland comprised mostly of introduced pasture grasses. The recommendedstocking density for improved pasture is one cow for every five acres of rangeland.
Inappropriate plant species - plant species which are not usually considered nuisance species,however may be indicative of other problems (i.e., improper hydrology) and may dominate a particularstratum (e.g., Rubus sp. in a cypress forested wetland). These plant species are not consideredappropriate for a particular habitat.
Increased hydroperiod - increase in the annual period of inundation, resulting in a change in the plantcommunity composition and structure, and which can include an increase in the duration andmagnitude of inundation.
Indirect impacts - impacts to wetlands such as increased nutrient loading, altered hydrology, impactsto wetland buffer, development of adjacent areas or disturbances by air, light or noise pollution.
Industrial - manufacturing, shipping and transportation operations, sewage treatment plant facilities,water supply plants and solid waste disposal..
Infiltration trench - impoundment in which incoming runoff is temporarily stored until it graduallyleaves the basin by infiltrating into the soils.
-xii-
Institutional – schools, churches, libraries etc. Runoff concentrations are similar to low intensitycommercial.
Intensively maintained - mowed, disked or similarly impacted on more than a semi-annual basis.
Invasive exotic plant species - exotic plant species (e.g., punk tree, Australian pine, Brazilian pepper,old-world climbing fern, etc.) that are invading and disrupting native plant communities in Florida.
Landscape setting - the type of land use that surrounds a wetland (i.e., agriculture, residential,commercial/industrial, undeveloped).
Low density residential - areas with lot sizes greater than one acre or less than one dwelling unit peracre.
Low intensity commercial - areas that receive minimal amounts of traffic volume where vehicles areparked for only a portion of the day; such areas include professional office sites and conveniencestores.
Low intensity land use - land uses such as low density residential, citrus and low intensitycommercial.
Low plant biomass density - minimal accumulation of living or dead plant material due to numerousfactors including excessive burning, mowing, grazing, recent vegetation installation, inappropriatenessof planted species, improper hydrology (including drought) and other human disturbances such asdamage by off-road vehicles.
Low volume highway – minor road facilities (i.e., 2-lane) which include rural and urban arterial andcollector roads. Asphalt or dirt roads with light to moderate traffic.
Magnitude of inundation - depth of inundation on an annual basis.
Mining - includes mining excavation, lake construction, and site development activities, resulting inthe removal or clearing of vegetation.
Moderately intensive commercial – areas that receive moderate amounts of traffic volume for aportion of the day, such areas include small shopping centers and plazas.
Moderately intensive land use - includes single-family residential, multi-family residential, golfcourses and golf course residential communities, industrial projects, highways and agricultural activitiessuch as pasture and row crops.
Multi-family residential - residential land use consisting primarily of apartments, condominiums andcluster homes.
Non-invasive exotic plant species - exotic plant species which have not yet been shown to be invasiveto natural communities.
-xiii-
Nuisance plant species - plant species which have the potential to dominate disturbed or created plantcommunities and form large vegetative colonies (e.g. cattails, spatterdock, primrose-willow).
Open space / natural undeveloped area – areas that are not developed and exhibit minimal humanimpact, such areas include parks and passive recreational areas.
Pretreatment or MSSW systems - constructed systems designed to pretreat water (i.e., removes suspended solids and reduce nutrient concentrations) prior to discharge. Systems can range insimplicity from grass swales and dry retention to secondary treatment and polishing ponds.
Proc GLM - Procedure General Linear Model.
Recreational – areas which have been developed for active recreational use (e.g., ballfields, soccerfields, tennis and volleyball courts, etc.). These areas typically have intensive ground maintenanceprograms.
Routinely maintained - mowed or similarly impacted on an annual basis.
Row Crops – agricultural practice of crops planted and harvested on an annual basis, excluding sugarcane (i.e., vegetable farms and plant nurseries).
SAS – Statistical Application Software.
Secondary productivity – macroinvertebrates, fishes and wildlife.
Single-family residential - detached dwelling units with lot sizes less than one acre and dwelling unitdensities greater than one dwelling per acre; duplexes constructed on one-third to one-half acre alsoincluded.
Subcanopy - the plant stratum composed of all woody plants and palms with a trunk or main stemdiameter at breast height (4.5') between one and four inches, except vines.
Undesirable plant species – exotic, nuisance or undesirable plant species for a given habitat.
Unimproved pasture - comprised mostly of native rangeland. The recommended stocking density isone cow per twenty-five acres of rangeland.
Wet detention areas- impoundments in which stormwater runoff is temporarily stored until itgradually leaves through an outflow control structure. A pool of water remains after a specific bleed-down period.
-xiv-
WETLAND RAPID ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE (WRAP)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The South Florida Water Management District's (District) former Management and Storage of SurfaceWaters (MSSW) and current Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) permitting processes haveevolved to reflect increasing concern over preserving natural resources. Consequently, recently issuedpermits have contained a wide assortment of special conditions with varying degrees of emphasis onenvironmental protection. The District's post-permit compliance inspections indicate that determiningpermit compliance is generally a straight-forward process, but does not necessarily reflect successfulenhancement, mitigation or preservation of a wetland/upland site.
Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) is a rating index developed to assist in the regulatoryevaluation of wetland sites that have been created, enhanced, preserved, or restored through theDistrict's MSSW or ERP processes. This standardized rating index can be used in combination withprofessional judgment to provide an accurate and consistent evaluation of wetland sites. The evaluatormust have a good understanding of Florida ecosystems (functions and species identification) in orderfor WRAP results to be valid. This current version of WRAP is the sixteenth version developed over aperiod of five years. Earlier versions indicated greater disparities in overall WRAP scores as a result ofinadequate calibration descriptions for the variables. Once these disparities were identified, thecalibration descriptions were rewritten and the procedure was retested. Over 400 observations wereused to field test and refine the descriptions of the variables prior to the final testing of the procedure.
The WRAP rating index establishes a numerical ranking for individual ecological and anthropogenicfactors (variables) that can strongly influence the success of mitigation projects. The numerical outputfor the variables is then used to evaluate the current wetland condition. The rating index can be used toevaluate a wide range of wetland/upland systems (e.g., emergent marsh, wet prairie, hardwood swamp.wet pine flatwoods etc.) but it is not intended to compare different wetland community types to eachother (i.e., marsh to wet prairie). Each wetland type is rated according to its attributes andcharacteristics. Although an interactive association among variables does exist, variables within therating index have not been individually weighted. Individual variables can be eliminated from theevaluation if the evaluator determines the specific parameter is not applicable.
Use of the WRAP rating index is intended to accomplish a number of objectives: to establish a simple,accurate, consistent and timely regulatory tool; to track trends over time (land use vs. wetland impacts)and to offer guidance for environmental site plan development.
WRAP is not a substitution for applied research science. It is a tool that can to be used by theregulatory community to ensure consistency and accuracy when evaluating a site through theregulatory process of resource permitting and post permit compliance. WRAP can be used as a tool todocument baseline information for a site prior to development activities. WRAP input data consistprimarily of field observations and professional experience. Some variables, such as exotic andnuisance plant coverage and adjacent upland/wetland buffer, can be quantified through interpretationsof aerial photography or visual estimations.
-1-
-2-
2.0 METHODOLOGY
WRAP incorporates concepts from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's "Habitat EvaluationProcedures" (HEP, 1980) and the South Florida Water Management District's "Save Our RiversProject Evaluation Rating index" (SOR, 1992).
Ecological communities (i.e., pine flatwoods, wet prairie, cypress dome, etc.) and their associatedattributes provide food, cover and breeding sites for a variety of flora and fauna. The holistic conceptof HEP is used to evaluate entire systems - both upland and wetland - and their interactive associations.HEP is based on the assumption that the value of a habitat can be evaluated at the species level byusing a set of measurable variables that are important for a particular species. The use of HEP isrestricted by the number of species models that have been developed and those species chosen forevaluation.
The SOR rating index was developed as a method of evaluating habitats to prioritize the allocation oftaxpayer dollars toward acquisition, restoration and management of sensitive lands. The rating index isused to evaluate sites using variables such as water management value, water supply potential, sitemanageability, habitat and species diversity, connectiveness, rare and endangered species, sitevulnerability and human use.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services "Habitat Suitability Index" was utilized in determining specifichabitat requirements for the fauna of Florida. This information has been included in Appendix A(Species Habitat Requirement Table) as a resource for evaluating the wildlife utilization variable ofWRAP. In addition, community profiles for sites to be evaluated using WRAP are described inAppendix B. Common freshwater fishes and aquatic insect taxa associated with the specific habitats arefound in appendices C and D, respectively. Appendix G is a list of Florida Land Use, Cover FormsClassification System (FLUCCS) codes for wetland systems found in Florida.
WRAP variables include the following:
- Wildlife Utilization- Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy - Wetland Vegetative Ground cover- Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffer- Field Indicators of Wetland Hydrology- Water Quality Input and Treatment Systems
2.1 METHODOLOGY FOR USING WRAP
OFFICE EVALUATION
The WRAP evaluator completes the following steps before leaving the office:
1. Identify the project site. Acquire an aerial map for field use and delineation of the projectboundaries.
-3-
2. Identify land uses adjacent to the project site (see Glossary for land use definitions).a. Identify developmental encroachment and type.b. Identify adjacent natural areas and plant communities using aerial photography.c. Identify roads, canals and other features (i.e., wellfields, etc.) potentially isolating
or impacting the site.d. Identify any water quality pre-treatment systems.
3. Identify wetland areas within the project site.a. Label wetland areas for future WRAP scoring.b. Utilize soil maps to verify or identify depressional map units that may not be readily apparent from aerial maps.c. Identify wetland types (i.e. cypress domes, wet prairie etc.) if possible. Determine Florida
Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System – FLUCCS codes for wetland types(Appendix G). This may need to be done at the time of the site visit.
1. Polygon assessment can be assigned based similar impacts including hydrology, exoticand nuisance plant coverage and plant species composition.
2. Polygon assessment is not limited by size (i.e., 1 acre or 100 acres).3. Polygon assessment can be based on project boundaries.
d. Identify access points to wetland areas.e. Identify canals and ditches adjacent to the wetland areas.f. Set up potential transects through wetland ecotypes. Transects would be warranted if
a particular wetland exhibited a number of vegetative community types. The transects could then be used for future monitoring events, if required by the permit.
g. Identify any wildlife studies that have been conducted on the site or on adjacent areas.
In addition, the evaluator should review on-site hydrology, site management, maintenance plans,seasonal variability, droughts, fire and excessive rainfall and any other pertinent information.
FIELD EVALUATION
1. Walk a minimum of 50% of the wetland perimeter.2. Visually inspect 100% of the wetland perimeter.
a. Look for signs of wildlife utilization (tracks, scats etc.) including direct observations.b. Identify plant community composition (visual estimate) using predetermined
transect (if necessary).1. Conduct a visual estimate of the plant species coverage and composition (including
exotic and nuisance plants) for the wetland and adjacent areas.2. Note any shifts in plant communities such as encroachment of upland or transitional
plant species into the wetland.c. Identify any hydrologic indicators present (see Glossary for list).
3. Document field observations on field data sheet (Section 2.3.1) to establish baseline informationfor future reference.
WRAP SCORE
Score each wetland for the six variables using the guidelines presented below.
-4-
2.2 METHODOLOGY FOR SCORING AND ASSESSING HABITAT VARIABLES
Methodology for the Habitat Assessment Variable, is a series of discussions - one for each WRAPassessment variable. Following each description is a rating index containing a set of calibrationdescriptions and corresponding score points. A score of 3 is considered the best a system can functionand 0 is for a system that is severely impacted and is exhibiting negligible attributes.
This can be interpreted as a score of 3 being equivalent to providing or having 100% functional value,whereas a score of 2 is equivalent to 67% functional value or a 33% functional loss.
Each system must be evaluated on its own attributes and is not to be compared to a different type ofsystem (i.e. wet prairie vs. marsh vs. cypress dome). An evaluator also has the option to score eachparameter in half (0.5) increments. This provides the flexibility to score a variable that is not accuratelydescribed or fitted by the calibration description. Half increments are utilized on the point scale from0.5 through 2.5. It should be noted that the bullet items under each descriptor are not listed in anyorder of importance.
If any variable does not apply to the habitat being rated, then the designation "NA" (not applicable) canbe applied. When the designation "NA" is used for a specific variable it is omitted from the finalcalculations used to rate the habitat.
Each applicable variable is scored: the scores are totaled (∑V) and then ∑V is divided by the total ofthe maximum score for that variable (∑Vmax). The final rating score for "Habitat AssessmentVariables" will be expressed numerically with a number between 0 and 1. The final rating score can beexpressed mathematically as follows:
WRAP Score = sum of the scores for the rated variables (V) sum of maximum possible scores for the rated variables (Vmax)
also expressed as:
∑V
∑Vmax
-5-
2.2.1.1 WILDLIFE UTILIZATION
Introduction
Wetlands provide many species of wildlife with basic life sustaining needs such as water, food (i.e.macroinvertebrates and other wetland dependent species including plants) and nesting and roostingareas. While some animal species prefer uplands for nesting and rearing of young, their primary foodsources are found within wetland systems. Water dependent species such as fish, some amphibians andbirds have specific requirements with regard to duration and magnitude of hydrologic inundation inorder to complete their life cycles. Not all wetland systems (e.g., hydric pines) provide habitat forextended hydroperiod dependent species.
It is important for the evaluator to understand the basic habitat requirements of south Florida fauna toknow which species or signs might be observed during site visits. Appendix A lists the habitatrequirements for a number of wildlife species found in south Florida. Included are food sources,protective cover, reproductive needs and habitat size. Appendices B (Habitat Community Profiles), C(Common Freshwater Fishes of Southern Florida) and D (Common Aquatic Insect Taxa) list additionalwildlife species. In addition to these references, the evaluator should use any pertinent wildlife studywith regards to the site or adjacent areas.
Though direct observation of wildlife utilization is ideal, it is not always possible due to the timeconstraints of the regulatory review process and the secrecy, mobility, habits and seasonality of manyspecies of wildlife. The evaluator must rely on the presence of signs, including scat, tracks, rubs, andnests etc. In some instances an evaluator may have to assume that if habitat needs for a particularspecies are present then this species probably does frequent the site.
It is recommended that the evaluator use a D-frame dip net to determine if macroinvertebrates arepresent. Several sweeps through the wetland vegetation, in combination with direct observations ofsurface dwelling species, should provide an indication of the lower trophic levels. The presence anddiversity of macroinvertebrates are quite variable depending on environmental factors such astemperature, pH, predation, and seasonality. During the dry season, the evaluator should look foravailable signs such as crayfish burrows and remnant exoskeletons of crayfish, dragonflies and applesnail shells. If those signs are not present, the reviewer must utilize the presence of wetland plantspecies as the primary indicator of on-site hydrology, influencing potential macroinvertebratepopulations.
In this procedure, rabbits and rodents are considered small mammals; fox, opossum and raccoon aremedium-sized mammals; and bobcat, otter, deer, bear and panther are large mammals. It is recognizedthat although some species (e.g., raccoon) have adapted well to urban encroachment, they also remainan intricate part of natural communities. Exotic animal species such as feral hogs are considereddisruptive to natural systems, but that is not addressed in this procedure.
In order for a score of 3 to be achieved for a wetland site, the system must provide habitat for all levelsof the foodchain associated with that particular system.
-6-
2.2.1.2 WILDLIFE UTILIZATION RATING INDEX
Objective
The wildlife utilization variable is a measure of observations and signs (i.e. scat, tracks etc.) of wildlife,primarily wetland dependent species. In addition, potential wildlife use through the presence of wildlifefood sources, nesting areas, roosting areas, den trees, protective cover and landscape position is alsoconsidered.
Score
EXISTING WETLAND EXHIBITS NO EVIDENCE OF WILDLIFE 0• Existing wetland is heavily impacted.• No evidence of wildlife utilization.• Little or no habitat for native wetland wildlife species.
EXISTING WETLAND EXHIBITS MINIMAL EVIDENCE OF WILDLIFEUTILIZATION 1• Minimal evidence of wildlife utilization.• Little habitat for birds, small mammals and reptiles.• Sparse or limited adjacent upland food sources.• Site may be located in residential, industrial or commercial developments with
frequent human disturbances.
EXISTING WETLAND EXHIBITS MODERATE EVIDENCE OF WILDLIFE UTILIZATION 2• Evidence of wetland utilization by small or medium-sized mammals and reptiles
(observations, tracks, scat).• Evidence of aquatic macroinvertebrates, amphibians and/or forage fishes.• Adequate adjacent upland food sources. • Minimal evidence of human disturbance.• Adequate protective cover for wildlife.
EXISTING WETLAND EXHIBITS STRONG EVIDENCE OF WILDLIFEUTILIZATION 3• Strong evidence of wildlife utilization including large mammals and reptiles.• Abundant aquatic macroinvertebrates, amphibians and/or forage fishes.• Abundant upland food sources.• Negligible evidence of human disturbance.• Abundant cover and habitat for wildlife within the wetland or adjacent upland.
-7-
2.2.2.1 WETLAND OVERSTORY/SHRUB CANOPY
Introduction
The wetland overstory/shrub canopy variable is a measure of the presence, health and appropriatenessof wetland shrub and overstory canopy. Canopy is defined as the plant stratum composed of all woodyplants and palms with a trunk four inches or greater in diameter at breast height (4.5'), except vines(Department of Environmental Protection, 1994). Subcanopy (which includes shrubs) is that plantstratum composed of all woody plants and palms with a trunk or main stem diameter at breast height(4.5') between one and four inches, except vines (Department of Environmental Protection, 1994).However, WRAP does include species of vines that may impact the overall health of theoverstory/shrub canopy (e.g., air potato, old-world climbing fern, grapevine, etc.).
Most of these wetland plant species have adapted to a restricted range of hydrologic regimes (SouthFlorida Water Management District, 1995). Wetland overstory/shrub canopy provides many benefits towildlife species such as cover, food, nesting and roosting areas. Wetlands can vary dramatically in thecomposition and density of overstory/shrub canopy species (Appendix B). This variable should be usedwhen there is significant overstory/shrub canopy (i.e., the coverage of canopy/shrub species shouldexceed twenty percent of the overall wetland acreage). The variable can also be used when there ispotential (i.e. immature) canopy present or for a forested wetland that has been clear cut (silviculture). WRAP categorizes the overstory/shrub canopy species into few, moderate and abundant trees present.Using these categories the reviewer evaluates the Arial coverage and density of the overstory/shrubcanopy for a particular wetland.
Certain wetland types characterized as deep-water marsh and wet prairie systems may exhibit limited orno canopy or shrub species (Myers, 1990, and Soil Conservation Service, 1987). In such situations,the variable would be designated "NA" (not applicable) and omitted from the final calculations. The overall condition of an overstory/shrub canopy can be evaluated by observing indicators such asthe presence of a large percentage of dead or dying trees or shrubs, soil subsidence, little or no seedlingregeneration and the presence of an inappropriate understory plant species. Although short-termenvironmental factors such as flooding, drought and fire (Beever, unpublished) can temporarily impactthe health of canopy, human activities such as flooding (i.e., stacking water in retention systems) ordraining systems via ground water withdrawal and conveyance canals can permanently damage thesesystems. Silvaculture practices, when properly conducted, are considered short-term impacts (i.e., 10-15 years).
Exotic and nuisance (E&N) plant species have become a serious problem in south Florida,outcompeting and replacing native plant communities. Wetlands containing E&N plant species areimpacted in various ways depending on the type of wetland and the degree to which it is infested.There are approximately 200 species of exotic plants currently listed by the Florida's Exotic PestCouncil's 1995 List of Florida's Most Invasive Species. WRAP has identified 31 species that mostcommonly occur in central and southern Florida; the species are listed in Appendix E. Many of thelisted species can be found invading Florida wetlands. The predominant E&N species are: melaleuca,Brazilian pepper, old-world climbing fern and cattail.
-8-
The punk tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia) is an aggressive exotic tree that has infested tens ofthousands of acres of south Florida wetlands. As melaleuca infests a wetland it changes thecharacteristics of the ecological community. Once established, melaleuca greatly reduces and in manycases eliminates the native understory of plant species.
Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) is another aggressive exotic tree that is rapidly spread byseed (birds and mammals). The largest populations occur on disturbed sites such as abandoned wetagricultural fields and canal banks. Brazilian pepper grows into dense thickets, reducing nesting areasand foraging areas for wildlife utilization (Myers and Ewel, 1990) and shading out native plant species.
The old-world climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum) can greatly impact wetland groundcover, shrubstrata and overstory strata. Lygodium can blanket an area, greatly reducing (by shading) or eliminatingnative plant species and severely impacting wildlife utilization. In addition, the fern can act as a conduitfor fire to reach the tree canopy resulting in extensive damage or death of the tree.
-9-
2.2.2.2 WETLAND OVERSTORY/SHRUB CANOPY RATING INDEX
Objective
The wetland overstory/shrub canopy variable is a measure of the health and appropriateness of thewetland shrub and overstory canopy. The assessment of the canopy variable is objectively evaluatedbased on food resources, cover, nesting potential, and appropriateness of the vegetative community.The canopy stratum is evaluated based on the habitat type. This variable may not be applicable tofreshwater marsh and wet prairie habitats where overstory/shrub canopy is typically not present (lessthan 20%). By definition, undesirable plant species include exotic and nuisance plant species. Score
NO DESIRABLE WETLAND OVERSTORY/SHRUB CANOPY TREES PRESENT 0• No desirable wetland trees or shrub species.• Negligible or little habitat support (i.e., roosting, nesting and foraging) from seedling trees (if present).• Site subject to recent clear cutting with no evidence of native canopy plant regeneration.• Greater than 75% undesirable plant species (including E&N species).
MINIMAL DESIRABLE WETLAND OVERSTORY/SHRUB CANOPY TREES PRESENT 1• Large amounts (approx.. 50%) of undesirable tree or shrub species.• Wetland overstory/shrub canopy immature but some potential for habitat support.• Minimal signs of natural recruitment of native canopy and shrub seedlings, or tree coppicing.• Few snags, or if many present, it may be an indication of hydrology problems or environmental impacts.• Disease or insect damage in live canopy trees.
MODERATE AMOUNT OF DESIRABLE WETLAND OVERSTORY/SHRUB CANOPYTREES PRESENT 2• Few (less than 25%) undesirable canopy trees/shrubs.• Wetland overstory/shrub canopy is providing habitat support.• Some evidence of natural recruitment of native canopy/shrub seedlings, or tree coppicing.• Few snags or den trees.• Healthy live canopy trees with minimal evidence of disease or insect damage.
ABUNDANT AMOUNT OF DESIRABLE WETLAND OVERSTORY/SHRUB CANOPY TREES PRESENT 3• No exotic and less than 10% invasive canopy/shrub species present.• Good habitat support provided by wetland overstory/shrub canopy.• Strong evidence of natural recruitment of native canopy and shrub seedlings.• Few snags or den trees.• Healthy live canopy trees with minimal evidence of disease or insect damage.
-10-
2.2.3.1 WETLAND VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER
Introduction
The ground cover variable is a measure of the presence, condition and appropriateness of the wetlandground cover. Ground cover will be defined as the plant stratum composed of all plants not found inthe canopy or subcanopy, including vines. Ground cover vegetation can provide a refuge for macro-invertebrates, fish fry, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals and also can provide a food source for smallmammals, waterfowl and reptiles.
Ground cover vegetation can be classified into herbaceous, graminoid, non-graminoid and woodyspecies. Ground cover can also be characterized according to growth form such as emergent, floating-leaf, submersed and free-floating surface. Most wetland species have adapted to a restricted range ofhydrologic regimes (South Florida Water Management District 1995). Species composition ofgroundcover varies among ecosystems although many species overlap (Appendix B).
The health and abundance of wetland ground cover (particularly herbaceous) can be significantlyaffected by extremes in wetland hydrology. Deepwater conditions created by improper wetland controlelevations or natural variability can drown wetland plant species. Conversely, drawdown of wetlands(due to wellfields and adjacent canals) and natural variability can reduce the presence of many wetlandspecies and allow for the encroachment of more upland/transitional species. The health of thevegetation can also be evaluated in terms of plant robustness. If the plants are chlorotic or spindly(provided they aren't just planted), it may be a sign of nutrient deficiency, improper soils or hydroperiodresponse.
Human activities (including hydrologic impacts and extensive nutrient inputs) can promote significantchanges in wetland ground cover. Mowing of herbaceous and graminoid wetlands for aesthetics caninterfere with seed production of certain plants. Grazing by cattle can influence the species compositionof some wetlands due to the introduction of nuisance species of plants (i.e., torpedograss (Panicumrepens) ). and other invasive grasses are tolerant of higher nutrient loads). In addition, cattle grazingand off-road vehicle traffic in wetlands create soil disturbance and compaction, as well as thedestruction of native vegetation.
As previously noted, exotic and nuisance plant species have become a serious problem in south Floridaby outcompeting and replacing native plant communities. Exotic and nuisance plant species such astorpedograss, primrose willow (Ludwigia spp.), old-world climbing fern, and cattail (Typha spp.) canbe extremely invasive and disruptive to the groundcover of wetland systems. E & N plant species are tobe considered when evaluating this variable.
-11-
2.2.3.2 WETLAND VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER RATING INDEX
Objective
The vegetative ground cover variable is a measure of the presence, abundance, appropriateness andcondition of vegetative ground cover within the wetland. By definition, undesirable plant speciesinclude exotic and nuisance plant species.
Score
NO DESIRABLE VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER IS PRESENT 0• Ground cover is greater than 75% undesirable vegetation.• Vegetative ground cover is intensively maintained, managed or impacted. • Site a freshly mulched created mitigation area with no evidence
of seed germination.
MINIMAL DESIRABLE VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER IS PRESENT 1• Ground cover exhibits large amounts (approx. 50%) undesirable vegetation.• Ground cover routinely managed for either aesthetics or agricultural production.• Site a newly planted mitigation area with low plant biomass density.• Site newly mulched with signs of seed germination.
MODERATE AMOUNT OF DESIRABLE VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER IS PRESENT 2• Few undesirable groundcover plant species are present (less than 25%).• Ground cover slightly impacted (human induced effects).• Mulched or planted areas established with desirable native plant species.
ABUNDANT DESIRABLE VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER IS PRESENT 3• Less than 10% nuisance and inappropriate plant species with no exotic plant species.• Minimal or no disturbances to ground cover.• Area subjected to either managed or natural periodic burns for enhancement of ground cover.
-12-
2.2.4.1 ADJACENT UPLAND/WETLAND BUFFER
Introduction
The adjacent upland/wetland buffer variable is a measure of the adjacent habitat support for the subjectwetland. This variable is evaluated based on the adjacent buffer size and the ecological attributes (i.e.,sediment removal, nutrient uptake, cover, food source, and roosting areas) the buffer area is providingfor the wetland system that is being assessed.
Wetland systems are subjected to disturbances that originate in adjacent upland areas. Thesedisturbances can impact biological, chemical and physical attributes of wetlands (Castelle, et al, 1994).Buffers are vegetated areas located between the jurisdictional wetland line and adjacent areas subject tohuman disturbance. Adjacent wetlands also serve as wetland buffers. Buffers may consist of areas thatare undisturbed native vegetation, areas wholly or partially cleared and revegetated, or areas withvarying degrees of exotic and nuisance vegetation.
The criteria for determining adequate buffer sizes should be partly based on the quality of the wetlandand the intensity of the adjacent land use (Castelle, et al, 1992). Smaller buffers are more acceptablewhen the adjacent land use is low intensity. Larger buffers are necessary when the adjacent land useintensity is high and the quality of the buffer is low. Buffers provide benefits to wetlands throughsediment control (Shisler, et al, 1987), removal of excess nutrients and metals from runoff by bothphysical filtration and plant uptake (Madison, et al, 1992), and maintenance of habitat diversity foranimal species that require the adjacent upland buffer to meet specific habitat needs (Naiman, et al,1988).
Buffers also form a transitional zone between the wetland and the adjacent development. The edgeeffect theory proposes that the numbers of plant and animal species increase at the edge, due to overlapof adjacent habitats and the creation of unique edge-habitat niches (Castelle, et al, 1994). Finally,buffers can act to reduce direct human impact by reducing access to the wetland and blocking noiseand light pollution.
Castelle, et al, (1994) state that buffers less than 15-30 feet provide little protection for aquaticresources. Buffers should be a minimum of 45-90 feet under most conditions. The lower range (45feet) is necessary for maintenance of physical and chemical protection, while the upper range (90 feet)is a minimum for the protection of biological components. Habitat Suitability Index models havedemonstrated the need for buffers between 10 and 350 feet depending on the resource needs of theparticular species.
Buffer quality is also very important. A good buffer might contain a mixture of native tree, shrub andground cover plant species. This would provide a visual and sound barrier for the wetland as well as afood source, cover and nesting habitat for wildlife species. In addition, the ground cover plant specieswould act as a filtration system for incoming surface water. An example of a low quality buffer wouldbe a ring of dense Brazilian pepper around the wetland. The dense growth of the pepper allows littlewildlife utilization. In addition, little or no ground cover can grow in the dense shade.
-13-
Large buffers (greater than 300 feet) consisting primarily of pasture grasses may provide spatialprotection and some sediment control for wetlands. However, these types of buffers provide lessbenefit as cover, food source and roosting areas than a good quality buffer.
This procedure considers high volume traffic roads or highways as a severance to existing buffers. Lowvolume traffic roads (i.e., dirt maintenance or fire break roads) are considered as a continuation to theexisting buffer, as well as shallow water bodies (e.g., small ditches and canals).
-14-
2.2.4.2 ADJACENT UPLAND /WETLAND BUFFER RATING INDEX
Objective
The adjacent upland /wetland buffer variable is a measure of the area adjacent to the subject wetlandand the landscape setting of the wetland. This variable is evaluated based on the adjacent buffer sizeand the ecological attributes (i.e. cover, food source and roosting areas for wildlife) that this area isproviding in association with the wetland that is being assessed.
Score
NO ADJACENT UPLAND/WETLAND BUFFER 0• Buffer non-existent.
ADJACENT UPLAND/WETLAND BUFFER AVERAGES 30 FEET OR LESS, CONTAINING DESIRABLE PLANT SPECIES 1• Less than 30 feet average width.• Mostly desirable plant species which provide cover, food source, and roosting areas for wildlife.• Not connected to wildlife corridors.• Greater than 300 feet but dominated (greater than 75%) by invasive exotic or nuisance plant species.
ADJACENT UPLAND/WETLAND BUFFER AVERAGES GREATER THAN 30 FEET BUT LESS THAN 300 FEET, CONTAINING PREDOMINANTLY DESIRABLEPLANT SPECIES 2• Greater than 30 feet but less than 300 feet average width.• Contains desirable plant species which provide cover, food, and roosting
areas for wildlife.• Portions connected with contiguous offsite wetland systems, wildlife corridors.• Greater than 300 feet but dominated (greater than 75%) by undesirable
noninvasive plant species (e.g., pasture grasses).
ADJACENT UPLAND/WETLAND BUFFER AVERAGES GREATER THAN300 FEET CONTAINING PREDOMINANTLY DESIRABLE PLANT SPECIES 3• Greater than 300 feet wide average width.• Contains predominantly desirable plant species (less than 10% nuisance, and no exotic species) for cover, food, and roosting areas for wildlife.• Connected to wildlife corridor or contiguous with offsite wetland
system or areas that are large enough to support habitat for large mammals or reptiles.
-15-
2.2.5.1 FIELD INDICATORS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGY
Introduction
Wetland hydrology can be a difficult variable to evaluate given the limited timeframes associated withthe regulatory process. Several field indicators enable an evaluator to make inferences with regard towetland hydrology. The duration and magnitude of inundation within a wetland system can beestimated based on plant morphological responses, plant community structure and soil morphology.
Plant Morphological Responses - Several wetland plant species have developed morphologicaladaptations that enable them to survive extended periods of inundation. Many wetland tree and shrubspecies develop adventitious roots as a response to the duration of inundation. Extended periods ofinundation promote the development of these secondary roots along the basal stem of the plant. Adventitious roots are formed when the primary root stock is inundated to the extent that anaerobicconditions severely reduce root oxygen and nutrient transport. In addition, recent cypress tree kneegrowth is an indication of extended inundation. The bark on the apex of the knee will be spreadexposing light brown or tan new growth tissue.
Other indicators include small plant species that colonize on trunks of trees at the seasonal high waterline. These hydrologic indicators can be used to assist in the determination of the magnitude ofinundation (Hale, 1984). Lichen lines colonize down to the seasonal high water mark. Conversely,moss collars predominantly colonize up to the seasonal high water mark.
Plant Community Structure (PCS) - The plant community structure is a composition of the groundcover and the overstory/shrub canopy. PCS can be used to make inferences about hydrologic impactsresulting from an increased or a reduced hydroperiod. The evaluator uses the PCS to assess the plantspecies for a specific habitat. Plant community profiles associated with specific wetland habitats for usewith this procedure are in Appendix B. Although this list is not inclusive, it includes plant speciestypically associated with a specific wetland system. Transitional plant species such as slash pine (Pinus elliottii), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) andsaltbush (Baccharis halimifolia) encroaching into the wetland can be cautiously used as evidence ofrecent decreases in the hydroperiod (Rochow, 1994, and Mortellaro, et al, 1995). Evaluation of thesetransitional tree and shrub species allows an observer to make some inference about the wetlandhydroperiod over the last 1 - 3 years. When evaluating the ground cover plant community, theevaluator should remember that transitional changes within the plant community can occur within one year (Thibodeau and Nickerson, 1985). Care must be taken to distinguish effects of recent droughtfrom more permanent impacts on hydrology.
-16-
Conversely, some wetland systems can be impacted by an increased hydroperiod. For example,an increased hydroperiod for a wet prairie will result in an extensive die-off of St. Johns Wort.This particular plant species is then replaced with deeper marsh plants such as maidencane(Panicum hemitomon), white water lilies (Nymphaea odorata) and cattails. In addition, if forestedwetland systems are maintaining a proper hydroperiod, then seedling regeneration will be occurringeither in openings within the canopy or on the periphery of the systems.
Before making accurate inferences about a reduced or increased hydroperiod, the evaluator shoulddetermine that the natural variability (e.g., extended droughts, excessive rainfalls, fires, etc.) is notcausing the observed plant community response. Having knowledge of the average annual rainfall forthe last 3 - 5 years will assist an evaluator with regard to this variable.
Soil Morphology - Soil morphology is used to evaluate soil development and characteristics. Areduced hydroperiod has a direct impact on organic soil development and can result in soil subsidencedue to oxidation (Synder and Davidson, 1994). When significant oxidation occurs there may be treefalls, excessive tree leanings, exposed roots at trunk bases and gaps beneath cypress knees.
Alteration of Wetland Hydrology - Human induced impacts that can alter the hydrology of wetlandsystems include roads, drainage canals, levees, wellfields and changes to the drainage basin. Thesealterations typically manifest themselves in a noticeable shift in the wetland vegetative community. Roads can interrupt historical sheetflow patterns and decrease the amount of contributing basin to awetland system or can block the natural flow and over-inundate the system. Drainage canals andwellfields are designed to move volumes of water from one area to another, whether it is for floodcontrol or consumption. Both systems have hydrological cones of influence. The permeability of soilsand the underlying geology in the vicinity of the wetland will determine the amount of drawdown theseactivities will cause in a wetland.
Changes to the contributing drainage basin can include increasing the amount of impervious surface(i.e., roofs, roads, parking lots, etc.) which in turn can increase the amount of water entering thewetland. This increase in hydrological input is sometimes accompanied by large decreases in thedelivery time to the system, which may result in wide fluctuations in water level thus affecting thesurvivorship or overall health of the plant species. Conversely, project construction can decrease thesize of the contributing basin, thus decreasing hydrological inputs.
Wetland systems in agricultural land use settings are sometimes preserved within retention areas.Adverse impacts can occur to these wetlands through the stacking of water (holding water levels abovecontrol elevation) or pumping too much water into the system. Both of these activities can drown orshift the species composition of the wetland.
-17-
2.2.5.2 FIELD INDICATORS OF WETLAND HYDROLOGY RATING INDEX
Objective
This variable is a measure of the hydrologic regime based on observed field indicators for the subjectwetland including hydroperiod duration and magnitude. Wetland hydrology is generally interpretedusing vegetative indicators. In addition, hydrologic indicators such as lichen lines, algal mats,adventitious roots and basal scarring are also utilized. Signs of altered hydrology may includeencroachment of upland and transitional plant species into the wetland.
Score
HYDROLOGIC REGIME HAS BECOME SEVERELY ALTERED WITH STRONG EVIDENCE OF SUCCESSION TO TRANSITIONAL/UPLAND OR OPEN WATERPLANT COMMUNITY 0• Wetland hydrology severely altered.• Hydroperiod inadequate to support wetland plant species for the particular
community type.• Strong evidence that upland plants are encroaching into the historical wetland area as a result of a decreased hydroperiod.• Die-off of wetland plant species as a result of an increased hydroperiod.• In sites with an organic soil substrate, there is substantial soil subsidence.
HYDROLOGIC REGIME INADEQUATE TO MAINTAIN A VIABLE WETLAND SYSTEM 1• Site hydroperiod inadequate to maintain the system that is being created, enhanced or preserved.• Succession of wetland plant species into transitional/upland plant species. Appropriate
vegetation stressed or dying from too much or too little water.• In sites with an organic soil substrate, there is evidence of soil subsidence.
HYDROLOGIC REGIME ADEQUATE TO MAINTAIN A VIABLE WETLAND SYSTEM. EXTERNAL FEATURES MAY AFFECT WETLAND HYDROLOGY 2• Wetland hydroperiod adequate, although conditions possibly interfering with or
influencing the hydroperiod of site (i.e., canals, ditches, swales, berms, reduced drainage area, culverts, pumps, control elevation and wellfields) present.• Plant community healthy, although there may be some signs of improper hydrology.• In sites with an organic soil substrate, there is little evidence of soil subsidence.
HYDROLOGIC REGIME ADEQUATE TO MAINTAIN A VIABLE WETLAND SYSTEM 3• Plants healthy with no stress resulting from an improper hydroperiod.• Wetland exhibits a natural hydroperiod.• Wetland not adjacent to canals, ditches, swales, berms, wellfields or other
negative impacts to the wetland within the landscape setting.• In sites with an organic soil substrate, there is no sign of soil subsidence.
-18-
2.2.6.1 WATER QUALITY INPUT AND TREATMENT
Introduction
Evaluating water quality within the limited timeframes of the regulatory process is a very difficult task. Without a long term water quality data-set it is virtually impossible to make any accurate inferencesabout water quality within a wetland system. However, literature review indicated that relativelycomprehensive information was available for several water quality constituents including: totalnitrogen, total phosphorus, ortho-phosphorus, BOD, TSS, total lead and total zinc (Harper, 1994).
For these selected constituents, runoff water quality varies with land use (Whalen and Cullum, 1988).The WRAP procedure utilizes nineteen land use categories to evaluate stormwater quality runoff and associated impacts. The land use categories were taken from Stormwater Loading Rate Parameters forCentral and South Florida (Harper, 1994). The land use categories used in WRAP include thefollowing: low-density residential, single-family residential, multi-family residential, golf course, low-intensity commercial, moderately-intensive commercial, high-intensity commercial, industrial,institutional, highways, citrus grove, sugar cane, row crops, improved pasture, unimproved pasture /rangeland, dairy and feedlot, mining, recreational and, open space/undeveloped natural areas. Each ofthese categories is defined in the Glossary. Using these land use designations is an important part ofapplying this Procedure in the field.
Pollutant loading rates from undeveloped natural areas are much lower than any other category.Loading rates for residential land uses increase steadily for each pollutant category from low-density tosingle-family to multi-family. These land use categories and their associated loading rates have beenused within this Procedure to calibrate the water quality variable. The previously mentioned land usedesignations represent the vast majority of land uses within central and south Florida. The reviewerdoes have the option of field adjusting pollutant loading scores based on knowledge and/or observedfarming practices (i.e., fertilizing and cattle density).
In addition to land use types, the efficiencies associated with different water management systems toremove pollutants must be considered. Treatment for the pollution in stormwater runoff is required inthe state of Florida through the regulatory process. There are several possible treatment methods. Wetdetention is the most commonly used mechanism, with approximately 70 percent of the watermanagement systems permitted in south Florida being wet detention systems. Dry detention, and/orretention and some form of infiltration/filtration are the other types of treatment mechanisms that arealso commonly used (Whalen and Cullum, 1988).
Wet detention systems, which include grass swales achieve up to 90 percent reduction for nutrients andsolids. Wet detention basins provide good to excellent pollutant removal efficiencies. The standingwater column provides for several physiochemical processes to achieve pollutant removal (Whalen andCullum, 1988).
Treatment of stormwater by use of dry retention basins is generally considered to be inferior to thatachieved by wet detention. The reason for the low removal of pollutants is most likely the absence of astanding water column, which provides a means for more extensive biological treatment (Whalen andCullum, 1988).
-19-
If the treatment system is not operating as designed (i.e., flows bypassing the system, inoperativecontrol structure, non-functional dry retention or impacts from off-road vehicles), the evaluator shouldconsider this information in calculating the variable score.
In wetland systems that are totally isolated (i.e., bermed) from surrounding areas and receive onlyrainfall as part of the water budget, the evaluator should not consider the surrounding land use or pre-treatment rating index. A water quality score of 2.75 should be assigned under this scenario.
The water quality component of WRAP is used to evaluate the adjacent land use type (LU) and itscontribution to the surface water budget for the subject wetland. WRAP does not considergroundwater inputs when calculating the water budget for a wetland system. This is due to thedifficulties of quantifying and identifying groundwater sources.
The type of surface water management pretreatment (PT) associated with the subject land use is alsoconsidered. Both LU and PT are independently assessed and then summed. The summed total is thendivided by two to calculate the water quality input and treatment (WQIT) score. Many times eitheron-site conditions are not accurately described or a combination of land uses exist adjacent to thesubject wetland. In these instances the evaluator must evaluate each of the surrounding land use(s),and the surface water management system associated with each land use. For wetland systems that arewholly contained within a single land use, 100% of the water budget will be attributed to that land use. The WQIT score is mathematically expressed as follows:
(%* surrounding x LU1) + (%* surrounding x LU2) +… (%* surrounding x LU(n)) = LU total
and,
(%* surrounding x PT1) + (%* surrounding x PT2) +… (%* surrounding x PT(n)) = PT total
hence,
WQIT = (LU total + PT total)/2
The scores for the PT systems are given with the assumption that the systems are built, operated andmaintained in accordance with all applicable regulations and guidelines.
∗ % expressed as a decimal
-20-
2.2.6.2 WATER QUALITY INPUT AND TREATMENT RATING INDEX
Objective
The water quality variable of the rating index is a measure of the quality of the surface water flowinginto the subject wetland from adjacent land uses (LU). The percent and type of surrounding land usesas well as any on-site pretreatment (PT) of surface waters prior to the discharge into wetlands isconsidered.
The scores for land use types are as follows:
LAND USE CATEGORY* SCORE
natural undeveloped areas 3unimproved pasture / rangeland 2.5citrus grove 2sugarcane 2low density residential 2low intensity commercial 2low volume highway 2institutional 2single-family residential 1.5recreational 1.5golf course 1.5moderately intensive commercial 1.5high volume highway 1industrial 1mining 1multi-family residential 1improved pasture 1row crop 1high intensity commercial 0.5dairy and feedlot 0
*see Glossary for definitions
The scoring increments for treatment systems are as follows:
PRE-TREATMENT CATEGORY SCORE
natural undeveloped area 3
wet detention with swales 2.5
-21-
PRE-TREATMENT CATEGORY (CONTINUED) SCORE
wet detention with dry detention 2.5
combination grass swales with dry 2detention
grass swales only/ vegetated buffer strip 1
dry detention only 1
no treatment 0
EXAMPLE FORMULA FOR WATER QUALITY INPUT AND TREATMENT VARIABLE(WQIT)
For the WRAP procedure, the permitted land use (or contributing basin) is considered the primaryhydrological input to the wetland system. For example, a wetland is surrounded on 75 % of itsperimeter by single-family residential (LU1) and 25% by an institutional land use (LU2). The surfacewater management systems of both projects discharge into the common wetland. The surface watermanagement system for the single-family development consists of grass swales, and dry and wetdetention (PT1). The surface water management system for the institutional land use consists of grassswales and dry detention (PT2). Both surface water management systems have been constructed andmaintained in accordance with their permits. For the above example the WQIT would be calculated asfollows:
Example: (%* surrounding LU1 x land use category score) + (%* surrounding LU2 x land usecategory score) = LU total
Hence: (.75 x 1.5) + (0.25 x 2.0 ) = LU total
Therefore: (1.13) + (0.5) = 1.63 = LU totalplus,
(%* surrounding LU1 x pre-treatment category score) + (%* surrounding LU2 x pre-treatment score = PT total
Hence: (.75 x 2.5) + (0.25 x 2.0 ) = PT total
Therefore: (1.88) + (0.5) = 2.38 = PT total
Hence: (LU total + PT total) / 2 = WQIT
Therefore: ( 1.63 + 2.38) / 2 = 2.0 = WQIT
• % expressed as a decimal
-22-
2.3 DESCRIPTION OF FIELD DATA SHEET
When assessing a wetland system using WRAP it is important that the evaluator document siteinformation and field observations on the field data sheet (section 2.3.1). The following is a descriptionof the information required when filling out the field data sheet.
Permit Number - any identification number for the site, either permit number or application number. This number must be inherent to a specific project so it can be used to identify the project areaaccurately for future assessments.
Project – the project name or parcel name of the wetlands being evaluated.
Date – the date on which the evaluation was conducted.
Evaluator – the name of the individual who preformed the evaluation.
Wetland Type – the type of wetland system (e.g., wet prairie, cypress dome, etc.) being assessed.
Land use – the permitted land use for the subject project.
Wildlife Utilization – a measure of the wildlife utilization within the subject wetland. Noted signs andobservations should be documented within the “Comments” section to support the wildlife utilizationassessment.
Wetland Canopy – a measure of the overstory/shrub canopy for the subject wetland. Fieldobservations should be documented in the “Comments” section to substantiate the assessment of thewetland canopy variable.
Wetland Ground Cover - a measure of the wetland ground cover for the subject wetland. Fieldobservations should be documented in the “Comments” section to substantiate the assessment of thewetland ground cover variable.
Habitat Support/Buffer - a measure of the habitat buffer for the subject wetland. Field observationsshould be documented in the “Comments” section to substantiate the assessment of the habitatsupport/buffer variable.
Field Hydrology - a measure of the field indicators of hydrology for the subject wetland. Fieldobservations should be documented in the “Comments” section to substantiate the assessment of thefield hydrology variable.
WQ Input & Treatment - a measure of the water quality input and surface water pre-treatment for thesubject wetland. Field observations should be documented in the “Comments” section to substantiatethe assessment of the water quality variable.
-23-
FLUCCS – Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System designation of the particularwetland being evaluated.
WRAP Score – the overall assessment score for the subject wetland. Each variable score is summedand then divided by the total possible maximum score for the variables (See Section 2.2). The finalWRAP score is expressed as a number between zero and one.
-24-
( WRAP )
Date
Wetland Acreage
Description:
Wildlife Utilization (WU) Wetland Canopy (O/S) Wetland Ground Cover (GC)
Field Hydrology (HYD) WQ Input & Treatment (WQ)*
Buffer type (Score) X (% of area) =Sub Totals
TOTAL
Land use Category (LU) Pretreatment Category (PT)Land use Category (Score) X (% of area) =Sub Totals (Score) X (% of area) =Sub Totals
(LU) TOTAL (PT) TOTAL
Field Notes:
FLUCCS Code
Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure
Wildlife Utilization ( WU )
* The value of WQ is obtained by adding the
Pretreatment Category
WRAP Score
Evaluator Wetland Type
WQ Input & Treatment ( WQ )
Field Hydrology ( HYD )
Wetland Canopy ( O/S )
Wetland Ground Cover ( GC )
Habitat Support / Buffer
TOTAL scores of Land use Category and
Pretreatment category then dividing by 2
Land Use
Habitat Support / Buffer
Application Number Project Name
Existing Conditions Proposed ConditionsCheck one
-26-
3.0 OBJECTIVES OF TESTING THE WRAP PROCEDURE
1. Determine the precision and accuracy of the procedure among individual evaluators using a two-way Analysis of Variance (Anova) of unequal class sizes;
2. Determine if collinearity existed between the WRAP variables;
3. Determine graphically if the functional and structural attributes measured in WRAP respond tohuman activities.
3.1 DESIGN PROTOCOL FOR WRAP VARIABLE CALIBRATION
The goal of establishing a design protocol for WRAP was to verify that attributes of wetland systemsthat were being measured responded to human actions. Data were collected and then analyzed bothstatistically and graphically to attempt to link human activity within project sites to responses within thewetland systems.
Ten land use designations were originally selected in the attempt to determine the degree of impactassociated with the wetland variables identified in WRAP. The ten land use designations described inWRAP were as follows:
• Agriculture• High Intensity Commercial• Highway• Industrial• Institutional• Low Density Residential• Low Intensity Commercial• Multi-Family Residential• Recreational/Open Space• Single-Family Residential
A design protocol was implemented within three geographical regions of south and central Florida: theFt. Myers region, the Orlando region and the West Palm Beach region (which coincide with thelocation of the District’s largest service centers). Evaluators from each of the service centersestablished three sites for each of the ten different land use designations.
Of the three sites selected for each land use, one was evaluated prior to any development activity, whilethe other two were within completed permitted projects. Altogether 27 sites were evaluated withineach geographical region, for a total of 81 sites District-wide in the initial testing of this protocol.
Evaluations of the three sites per land use prior to development will be used to track trends over
-27-
time and to document human activities and associated responses of the wetland attributes used inWRAP. In addition, the undeveloped sites will be used to test the validity of WRAP as a predictive toolfor evaluating wetland impacts, as a result of project development. The WRAP prediction scores willbe validated as each project is completed and as-built WRAP scores are compared to the predictedscores.
The evaluation of the remaining six sites per land use, constructed projects, will be used to validatewhether or not the selected wetland attributes show a response to human influences.
The testing protocol required 3 - 5 evaluators per site to collect the proper data for the statisticalanalysis. A minimum of 250 data points was selected as the goal for the initial testing of WRAP.
In addition, five wetland types were selected in conjunction with the ten land uses for preliminarytesting of the WRAP. The types were selected as representative wetland communities that had beentypically impacted by development within each geographic region. The wetland types selected perregion were as follows:
Service Center Wetland Community Type
West Palm Beach Wet Prairie, Emergent Marsh
Orlando Cypress Swamp, Mixed Hardwood
Fort Myers Wet Prairie, Hydric Pines
WRAP evaluators selected testing sites based on the availability of the regional wetland communitytypes and the ten designated land uses. In the future, additional wetland types and adjacent land useswill be evaluated within each region.
WRAP evaluator training consisted of a two-day course. A half a day was spent introducing theProcedure along with selecting training sites for field evaluation. The selected sites were reviewed inthe office using the procedures outlined in WRAP. The remaining day and a half was spent in the fieldevaluating between 6 – 8 sites in accordance with the field evaluation procedures outlined in WRAP.
The collected data are being evaluated graphically by comparing WRAP scores for individual wetlandattributes (y-axis) to specific land use designations (x-axis). This will assist in substantiating theselection of each attribute and the way human activities affect it.
Statistically, a two-way Anova of unequal class sizes was applied to the data set. This Anova designwas used for each evaluator at each wetland, and the error associated with differences in evaluatorscores estimated as a component of variance. When calculating components of variance from an Anovamodel the variance is partitioned among each of the sources of variance.
-28-
The statistical Anova model for WRAP is as follows:
WRAP Score = Wetlandi + Evaluatorj + errork
where: Wetlandi = resource condition at the ith wetland
Evaluatorj = effect of the jth Evaluator
From this model the variance can be estimated for each component. If the variance resulting fromdifferences in the wetlands is much larger than the variance resulting from different evaluators, then thedifferences in evaluators are not important. If observer variance is large relative to the associated erroror site differences, then the protocol needs to be reevaluated.
3.2 RESULTS
Statistical Summary
A total of 303 data points were used in the preliminary testing of WRAP. This included 81 differentwetland sites with an average 3-5 evaluators per site, 8 different wetland communities and 19 land usedesignations.
The data were found to be normally distributed. Preliminary evaluation of the data using SASprocedure Proc GLM was used to determine procedure repeatability (two-way Anova). The analysisresults are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of two-way Anova statistical analysis of WRAP._________________________________________________________________
Source of variance p value % variance
Site .00001 98.6
Observer 0.7751 0
Error 1.4
R square = 0.96 Range = 0.31-0.95 Mean = 0.64__________________________________________________________________
-29-
The data results indicate the current procedure is highly repeatable among evaluators, with 98.6 % ofthe variability explained by differences in sites. The variability caused by differences in evaluators wasapproximately 0. It should be noted that although 3-5 evaluators visited each of the 81 different sites, atotal of 17 different evaluators participated in the data collection.
Analysis for multicollinearity and correlation among the variables yielded no significant correlations.Although the testing has indicated no correlation among the variables, the authors have chosen toeliminate the Exotic and Nuisance Plant variable as a separate variable and incorporate its componentsinto the Wetland Overstory/Shrub Canopy, Wetland Vegetative Ground Cover and AdjacentUpland/Wetland Buffer variables. This change will eliminate some of the confusion in using theprocedure and in the perception that the presence of exotic and nuisance plant species has been unfairlyweighted.
During the development and testing of WRAP it became apparent that this type of procedure is aneffective wetland assessment training tool for small groups (< 6 people). In many instances, the groupsconsisted of individuals with different areas of expertise. This resulted in significant and opendiscussion about each variable. A comment frequently heard during the testing of WRAP was that theprocedure requires the evaluator to evaluate each variable independently. This may assist in eliminatingpersonal bias when evaluating wetland systems.
Additional graph analysis is being used in an attempt to determine how the functional and structuralattributes measured in WRAP respond to human induced activities.
-30-
4.0 SUMMARY
As indicated by the statistical results, WRAP is a repeatable assessment procedure. The majority(98.6%) of the error associated with the analysis was with differences between sites, not evaluators.The development of any wetland functional assessment procedure requires an iterative process toassess a wide assortment of field conditions.
In addition, each individual variable was shown to be independent. The authors have chosen toeliminate the Exotic and Nuisance Plant variable and incorporate its components into the WetlandOverstory/Shrub Canopy, Wetland Vegetative Ground Cover and Adjacent Upland/Wetland Buffervariables to reduce confusion in using the assessment procedure.
The overall objective in the development of WRAP is to utilize as much information as possible, bothfrom literature reviews and professional experience, and organize it in the form of a simple but accuraterating index. In order for any wetland functional assessment procedure to be accepted by the regulatorycommunity, the procedure has to be simple enough to use without collecting time-consuming field dataand must be able to be completed within a relatively short time period.
It is important to follow the office and field procedures outlined in Section 2.1 when applying WRAP.The testing of the Procedure revealed that the majority of the differences (e.g., identifying surroundingland uses, water quality treatment, etc.) resulted from an inadequate review of the project site prior tothe actual field visit. A thorough office evaluation of the project site will help reduce these disparities,as well as reveal any on-going maintenance programs or wildlife studies done for the site or adjacentareas.
Field evaluations are used to verify the information obtained from the office review. Frequently, thefield inspections reveal that the water quality treatment component has not been implemented ormaintained in accordance with permit design. In these cases, the evaluators must adjust their scoresaccordingly. It is crucial that the evaluator documents, on the field data sheet, the justification for therevised scores. It is recommended that after conducting a WRAP evaluation, the evaluator keeps thescore sheet, with field notes and justification for each variable score, for future reference. Good fieldnotes will also be useful when evaluating the system on a long-term basis.
One of the original goals of testing the design protocol was to evaluate wetland function impactsassociated with specific land uses. Once the testing of WRAP was complete, it became apparent thatfor most land uses the data set was inadequate to make any inferences in this regard. However, asadditional data are collected, further analysis will be conducted in an attempt to establish a relationshipbetween land use and wetland function.
Finally, the testing of WRAP identified nine additional land uses that were not originally identified inthe “Design Protocol for WRAP Variable Calibration” (See Section 3.1). Most were multiple land useswith variations of the original ten land uses.
-31-
-32-
5.0 SELECTED REFERENCES
Allen, A.W. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: barred owl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Biological Report 82/10.143. 17 pages.
Allen, A.W. 1984. Habitat suitability index models: Eastern cottontail. U.S. and Fish WildlifeService, FWS/OBS-82/10.66. 23 pages.
Allen, A.W. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: fox squirrel. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,FWS/OBS-82/10.18. 11 pages.
Allen, A.W. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: gray squirrel. revised. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82/10.135. 16 pages. [First printed as: FWS/OBS-82/10.19, July 1982].
Armbruster, M.J. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: greater sandhill crane. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Biological Report 82/10.140. 26 pages.
Beever, J.W. III and L.B. Beever. The Effects of Annual Burning on the Understory of a Hydric SlashPine Flatwoods in Southwest Florida (unpublished). Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,Punta Gorda., Florida. 26 pages.
Boyle, K.A. and T.T. Fendley. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: bobcat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82/10.147. 16 pages.
Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Waterways Experimental Station: Wetland Research Program WRP-DE-4. Vicksburg,Mississippi. 101 Pages.
Broward County Department of Natural Resource Management. 1993. Wetland Benefit Index.Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. 4 pages.
Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly , M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Mauermann, T. Erickson,and S.S. Cooke. 1992. Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. Publ. 92-10. Adolfson Associationfor Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program. Washington Department of Ecology,Olympia, Washington. 171 pages.
Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and Stream Buffer Size Requirements -A Review. Journal of Environmental Quality. Pages 878-882.
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. 1995. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's 1995 Most InvasiveSpecies. Boca Raton, Florida. 10 pages.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). 1994. Delineation of Landward Extent ofWetlands and Surface Waters. Section 62-340.100, Florida Administrative Code. 49 pages.
-33-
Florida Department of Transportation. 1985 (2nd edition). Florida Land Use, Cover and FormsClassification Systems. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Pages 33-38.
Graves, B.M. and S.H. Anderson. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: bullfrog. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Biological Report 82/10.138. 22 pages.
Hale, M.E., Jr. 1984. The Lichen Line and High Water Levels in a Fresh Water Stream in Florida.The Bryologist 37(3), Pages 261-265.
Harper, H.H. 1994. Stormwater Loading Rate Parameters for Central and South Florida..Environmental Research & Design, Inc. Orlando, Florida. 59 pages.
Lodge, T.E., R.B. Darling, D.J. Fall, and H.O. Hillestad. January 15-22, 1994. Seminar entitled "AWetland Evaluation Method for the Everglades: Impact to Mitigation. Law Companies.” APresentation by Law Companies, Inc. at the Florida Water Policy and Management, Telluride,Colorado.
Lodge, T.E. 1994. The Everglades Handbook:Understanding the Ecosystem. St. Lucie Press, DelrayBeach, Florida. Pages 25-26.
Lewis, J.C. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: roseate spoonbill. U.S. Fish. and Wildlife Service ,FWS/OBS-82/10.50. 16 pages.
Madison, C.E., R.L. Blevins, W.W. Frye, and B.J. Barfield. 1992. Tillage and Grass Filter StripEffects upon Sediment and Chemical Losses. Page 331. In Agronomy abstracts. American Society ofAgronomists. Madison, Wisconsin.
Marsh, A. 1994. Common Freshwater Fishes of Southern Florida (unpublished). Florida AtlanticUniversity, Boca Raton, Florida. 1 page.
Marsh, A. 1994. Common Aquatic Insect Taxa (unpublished). Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton,Florida.. 2 pages.
Mortellaro, S., S. Krupa, L. Fink, and J. Van Horn. 1995. Literature Review on the Effects ofGroundwater Drawdown on Isolated Wetlands. Technical Publication No. 96-01. South Florida WaterManagement District, West Palm Beach, Florida. 44 Pages.
Myers, R. L. and J.J. Ewel (editors). 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 765 pages.
Naiman, R..J., H. Decamps, J. Pastor, and C.A. Johnson. 1988. The potential importance ofboundaries to fluvial systems. Journal of North American Benthological Society 7(4):289-306.
Newsom, J.D., T. Joanen, and R.J. Howard. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: Americanalligator. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82/10.136. 14 pages.
-34-
Peterson, A. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: bald eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Biological Report 82/10.126. 25 pages.
Prose, B.L. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: belted kingfisher. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82/10.87. 22 pages.
Rochow, T.F. 1994. The Effects of Water Table Level Change on Freshwater Marsh and CypressWetlands in the Northern Tampa Bay Region. Southwest Florida Water Management District.Technical Report 1994-1, Brookesville, Florida. 46 Pages.
Schroeder, R.L. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: pine warbler 1st rev. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, FWS/OBS-82/10.28. 9 pages. [First printed September 1982].
Schroeder, R.L. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: pileated woodpecker. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, FWS/OBS-82/10.39. 15 pages.
Schoeder, R.L. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: Eastern wild turkey. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Biological Report 82/10.106. 33 pages.
Shisler, J.K., R.A. Jordan, and R.N. Wargo. 1987. Coastal Wetland Buffer Delineation. New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources, Trenton, New Jersey.
Short, H.L. and R.J. Cooper. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: great blue heron. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Biological Report 82/10.99. 23 pages.
Short, H.L. 1986. Habitat suitability index models: white-tailed deer in the Gulf of Mexico andAtlantic coastal plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82/10.123. 36 pages.
Snyder, G.H. and J. M. Davidson. S.M. Davis and J.C. Ogden (editors). 1994. EvergladesAgriculture: Past, Present and Future (in) Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration. St. LuciePress, Delray Beach, Florida. Pages 85-115.
Soil Conservation Service of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Reprinted 1987. 26 EcologicalCommunities of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. 296 pages.
Sousa, P.J., and A.H. Farmer. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: wood duck. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.43. 27 pages.
South Florida Water Management District. 1982. Save our Rivers Project Evaluation Rating index(unpublished). West Palm Beach, Florida. 9 pages.
South Florida Water Management District. 1995. Technical Support for Development of WetlandDrawdown Criteria for Florida's Lower West Coast Part 1. Results of Literature Review ModelingStudies and Expert Opinion. (unpublished). West Palm Beach, Florida. 431 pages.
Stuber, R.J., G. Gebhart, and O.E. Maughaun. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: largemouthbass. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.16. 33 pages.
-35-
Stuber, R.J., G. Gebhart, and O.E. Maughn. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: bluegill. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.8. 26 pages.
Thibodeau, F.R., and N. H. Nickerson. 1985. Changes in Wetland Plant Association Induced byImpoundment and Draining. Biological Conservation, Vol. 33, Pages 269-279.
Twomey, K.A., G. Gebhart, O.E. Maughan, and P.E. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability index modelsand instream flow suitability curves: redear sunfish. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.79. 29 pages.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center. 1993. Habitat EvaluationProcedures Workbook. revised. 282 Pages. [First Printed 1980].
Van-Miller, S. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: osprey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Biological Report 82/10.154. 58 pages.
Whalen, P.J., and M.G. Cullum. 1988. An Assessment of Urban Land Use/Stormwater RunoffQuality Relationships and Treatment Efficiencies of Selected Stormwater Management Systems.South Florida Water Management District, Technical Publication 88-9. West Palm Beach, Florida. 56pages.
-36-
SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENT TABLE Appendix A
SPECIES FOOD COVER REPRODUCTION HABITAT SIZE
Great Blue Heron Water is less than 50cm deep, fish, Not a limiting factor. Trees 5 - 15 m. Ht. Riparian swamp. 0.4 ha - 4.8 ha.
(Ardea herodias) reptiles, and macro-invertebrates. Tree islands.
Bullfrog Fish, reptiles, macro-invertebrates Groundcover, understory, stumps, Continuous standing water. Not a limiting factor.
(Rana cstesbeiana) amphibians. logs, and banks
Barred Owl Small mammals, reptiles, fish, and Dense forested wetlands Trees are larger than 50 cm dbh. Nest Greater than 10 ha.
(strix varia) macro-invertebrates Deciduous riparian woodlands. cavity greater than 7.6 m from ground.
Wood Duck Aquatic plants, fruits, insects, acorns Downed timber, dense shrub, 50 - 75% cover (tree cavities, shrubs). Greater than 4 ha.
(apix sponsa) and macro-invertabrates. canopy riparian forest. 25 - 50% open water.
Eastern Cottontail Grasses, herbs, flowers (usually not a Shrubby cover adjacent to field Grasses are less than 20 cm high. Greater than 4 ha.
(sylvilagus floridanus) limiting factor). edges, savanna prairie, forbs,
brambles.
Alligator Small mammals, large mammals, birds Palustrine emergent. Sloping banks, with available vegetation Greater than 5 ha.
(alligator mississippiensis) reptiles, fish, & macro-invertebrates. Estuarine emergent vegetation.
Sandhill Crane Insects, macro-invertebrates, reptiles, Roosting site typically within large Large marsh complexes. Scattered Dependent on isolated wetland.
(Grus camadensis) amphibians, roots, small mammals. wetlands (cover typically not a marshes, bogs (isolation).
limiting factor).
White-tailed deer Seeds, fruits, twigs, acorns, shoots, buds, Swamps, thickets, broken mixes of See cover Greater than or equal to 40 ha.
(Odocoileus virginianus) broadleaved herbaceous plants, grasses. forest & agricultural land. Forested
area with limited tree canopy.
SPECIES FOOD COVER REPRODUCTION HABITAT SIZE
Bobcat Large, medium & small mammals, reptiles, Thickets, hollow stumps, logging Thickets, hollow stumps, logging Minimum is greater than 1 km.
(Felis rufus) and birds. debris, bottomland hardwood , mixed debris. Opt. is greater than 20 km.
grassy areas.
Large mouthed bass Insects, macroinvertebrates, crustaceans. Some standing water at all times. Nesting area: Gravel, vegetation sand, No minimum habitat size
(Micropterus Salmoides) fish and amphibians. Riverine- sufficient pools of less than mud, roots, cobble, 0.15 - 7.5 m depth. established.
6 cm per second flow..
Lacustrine and lakes with greater than
25% area less than 6 m depth. Optimal
cover 40 - 60% of logs, brush, and
debris, in littoral areas or pools.
Belted Kingfisher Fish, crayfish, frogs, & insects. Roosts on single limbs about 6 - 7 m Shrub cover (brooding), Nesting Greater than 1.0 km of lake shore
(Ceryle alcyon) above ground. Bare branches, wires borrows in steep banks devoid of or stream.
for fishing. vegetation
Bald Eagle Birds, medium to small mammals, fish, Sheltered timber stands. Old-growth & second-growth timber. 8 ha of water surrounded by
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) reptiles & amphibians, macro-invertebrates Mature trees, open forest structure 1.5 km strip of land.
within 182 m of a lake or fishable
body of water.
Fox Squirrel Seeds, mast, buds, insects, tubers, roots, Hardwood or pine flatwoods with little Leaf nests, tree cavaties. 2 ha
(Sciurus niger) and birds eggs. understory. Stands of large trees
interspersed with agricultural lands,
well-drained bottomlands.
Gray Squirrel Mast, fruit, buds, seeds, bark, roots, Mature hardwood forest with dense Hardwood stands greater than 60 years Greater than 0.4 ha.
Sciurus carolinensis) fungus, and animal matter. well developed understory. Sawtimber sizeold, den trees, leaf nests.
trees greater than 22.8 cm in dbh.
trees greater than 22.8 cm in dbh.
SPECIES FOOD COVER REPRODUCTION HABITAT SIZE
Redear sunfish Juvenile-algae microcrustaceans, Lacustrine, palustrine, slow moving Depth of water at nest varies 5 cm to No minimum size established.
Lepomis microlophus) Adults-zooplankton, macro-invertabrates rivervine, vegetated shallow areas 6 m. Vegetative free substrate. Sandy
and crustaceans. with brush, stumps and logs. clay, gravel, limestone, shells & mud.
Roseate spoonbill Fish, crustaceans, macro-invertebrates Islands, islets, keys, shrubs and forestMangrove thickets, horizontal limbs. Colonial birds. Important that the
Ajaia ajaia) wetlands, roosting trees, & shrubs (See cover requirements). Nest island is greater than 4 km from
2 - 6 m up to 30m. height 0.5 m - 10 m on islands. 3 - 20 m mainland.
on mainland.
Bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus) Zooplankton, aquatic and terrestrial Lacustrine, palustrine and slow-moving Vegetated areas & unvegetated areas. No minimum habitate size
insects, and plant material. riverine. Fertile water bodies with Substrate - fine gravel, sand, sandy - clay,established.
submerged vegetation, logs, brush. mud, limestone shells. 1 - 3 m water depth.
Pine warbler
(Dendroica pinus) Insects, pine seeds, wild fruits, berries. Pure stands of seral pine trees. Horizontal branches in needles at end of Usually greater than 10 ha.
35 - 100 years old, mature conifers. a branch or in a clump of cones. Nests
at heights greater than 8 m.
Pileated woodpecker
(Dryocopus pileatus) Ants, beetles, wild fruit. Foraging: dense canopies with Cavity nesters. Tall snags. Greater than 130 ha.
numerous snags, stumps & logs. Nests at greater than 51 m off ground.
Cover: dense forests, mesic habitats.
Eastern Wild Turkey
(Meleagris gallapavo sylvestris) Grasses, acorns, seeds, fruits, tubers, bulbs, Open mature woodlands, mixture of Nests on ground concealed by dense Greater than 900 ha.
insects, amphibians, crustaceans. forests and open lands. brush, mayfields, fence rows, and
utility right-of-ways.
insects, amphibians, crustaceans. forests and open lands. brush, mayfields, fence rows, and
utility right-of-ways.
APPENDIX B
HABITAT COMMUNITY PROFILES
HABITAT TYPE WILDLIFE UTILIZATION OVERSTORY/SHRUB SPP. GROUNDCOVER SPP. HYDROLOGY
Everglades Five Lined Skink Slash Pine Sawgrass Inundation 2-6 months (Eumeces inexpectatus) (Pinus elliotti var. densa) (Cladium jamaicense)Rocky Glades Pygmy Rattlesnake Cabbage Palm Camphor Weed
(Sistrurus miliarius) (Sabal palmetto) (Pluchea spp.)Hawk Guild Gallberry Snowberry (Buteo spp.) (llex galbra) (Chiococca alba)Carolina Wren Myrsine Beak Rush(Thyothorus ludovicianus) (Myrsine spp.) (Rhynchospora spp.)* Pine Warbler Poisonwood Wire Grass(Dendroica pinus) (Metopium toxiferum) (Aristida spp.)Opposum Dahoon Holly Muhly Grass(Didelphis virginiana) (llex cassine) (Muhlenbergia capillaris)Marsh Rabbit Saltbus Periphyton(Sylvilagus palustris) (Baccharis spp.) (Blue-green algae, etc.)Cotton Rat Carolina willow White-top Sedge(Sigmodon spp.) (Salix caroliniana) (Rhynchospora colorata)Cotton Mouse Swamp bay Mermaid-weed(Peromyscus gossypinus) (Persea palustris) (Proserpinaca spp.)Racoon Glades lobelia(Procyon lotor) (Lobelia glandulosa)* Bobcat(Lynx rufus)* Deer(Odocoileus virginianus)
* - See Appendix A
HABITAT TYPE WILDLIFE UTILIZATION OVERSTORY/SHRUB SPP. GROUNDCOVER SPP. HYDROLOGY
Everglades Cricket Frog Slash Pine Sawgrass Inundation > 4 months(Acris gryllus dorsalis) (Pinus elliottii var. densa) (Cladium jamaicense)
Marl Glades Squirrel treefrog Cabbage Palm Spike Rush(Hyla squirella) (Sabal palmetto) (Eleocharis cellulosa)Leopard Frog Dahoon Holly Swamp Lily(Rana sphenocephala) (Ilex cassine) (Crinum americanum)Pig frog Poisonwood Beak Rush(Rana grylio) (Metopium toxiferum) (Rhynchospora spp.)Cotton Mouth Pond Cypress Periphyton(Agkistrodon piscivorus) (Taxodium ascendens) (Blue-green Algae, etc)Water Snake Muhly Grass(Nerodia pp.) (Muhlenbergia capillaris)Aquatic Turtle guild Flat Sedge* Heron and Egret guild (Cyperus elegans) Hawk Guild Flat Sedge(Buteo spp.) (Cyperus haspan)White Ibis(Guara alba)* Bobcat(Lynx rufus)* Deer(Odocoileus virginianus)Marsh Rabbit(Sylvilagus palustris)Racoon(Procyon lotor)
* - See Appendix A
HABITAT TYPE WILDLIFE UTILIZATION OVERSTORY/SHRUB SPP. GROUNDCOVER SPP. HYDROLOGY
Everglades Pig frog Cypress Sphagnum moss Inundation > 9 months(Rana grylio) (Taxodium spp.) (Sphagnum spp.) Saturated 12 months/yr
Organic Glades Cricket Frog Slash Pine Pickerel Weed(Acris gryllus dorsalis) (Pinus elliottii var. densa) (Pontederia spp.)Little Grass Frog Red Bay Duck Potato(Limnaoedus ocularis) (Persea palustris) (Sagittaria spp.)Aquatic turtle guild Sweet Bay Beak Rush* American Alligator (Magnolia virginiana) (Rhynchospora spp.)(Alligator mississippiensis) Fetterbush Fragrant Water LilyCrayfish snake (Lyonia lucida) (Nymphaea odorata)(Regina alleni) Buttonbush Spike Rush* Barred Owl (Cephalanthus occidentalis) (Eleocharis spp.)(Strix varia) Wax Mrytle Swamp Lily* Pileated Woodpecker (Myrica cerifera) (Crinum americanum)(Hylatomus pileatus) MaidencaneWhite Ibis (Panicum hemitomon)(Guara alba) SawgrassHeron and Egret guild (Cladium jamaicense)Hawk Guild* Barred Owl(Strix varia)* Pileated Woodpecker(Hylatomus pileatus)River Otter(Lutra canadensis)* Bobcat(Lynx rufus)* Deer(Odocoileus virginianus)
* - See Appendix A
HABITAT TYPE WILDLIFE UTILIZATION OVERSTORY/SHRUB SPP. GROUNDCOVER SPP. HYDROLOGY
Cypress Swamp * Deer Bald/Pond Cypress Royal Fern Hydroperiod 120-360 days(Odocoileus viriginianus) (Taxodium spp.) (Osmunda regalis)River Otter Coastal Plain Willow Cinnamon Fern Depth of Inundation +2' (wet)(Lutra canadensis) (Salix caroliniana) (Osmunda cinnamomea)Raccoon Blackgum Swamp Fern Depth of Inundation -4' (dry)(Procyon lotor) (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora) (Blechnum serrulatum)* Barred Owl Red Maple Chain Fern(Strix varia) (Acer rubum) (Woodwardia spp.)* Heron Guild Button Bush Shield Fern(Ardea spp., etc.) (Cephalanthus occidentalis) (Thelypteris spp.)Limpkin Wild Coffee Arrow Arum(Aramus guaruana pictus)(Pyschotria nervosa) (Peltandra virginica)Great Horned Owl Virginia-willow Lizard Tail(Bubo virginianus) (Itea virginica) (Saururus cernuus)Barn Owl Wax Myrtle Pickerel Weed(Tyto alba pratincola) (Myrica cerifera) (Pontederia spp.)Woodstork Fetterbush Sphagnum Moss(Mycteria americana) (Lyonia lucida) (Sphagnum spp.)* Wood Duck(Aix sponsa)* Bobcat(Lynx rufus)Cricket Frog(Acris gryllus dorsalis)Liitle Grass Frog(Limnaoedus ocularis)* American Alligator(Alligator mississippiensis)Aquatic Turtle Guild
* - See Appendix A
HABITAT TYPE WILDLIFE UTILIZATION OVERSTORY/SHRUB SPP. GROUNDCOVER SPP. HYDROLOGY
Wet Flatwoods Oak Toad Slash Pine Blue Maidencane Wet Season:(Bufo quercicus) (Pinus elliottii var. densa) (Amphicarpum Hydroperiod 1-4 months/yr.Chorus Frog Sabal Palm mulhenbergianum) Depth of inundation 1'-2'(Pseudacris nigrata) (Sabal palmetto) Wire Grass above the surfaceCricket Frog Dahoon Holly (Aristida spp.)(Acris gryllus dorsalis) (Ilex cassine) Beak Rush Dry Season:Black Racer Red Bay (Rhynchospora spp.) Depth of inundation -3'(Coluber c. priapus) (Persea palustris) Maidencane below the surfaceDiamondback Rattlesnake Wax Myrtle (Panicum hemitomon)(Crotalus adamanteus) (Myrica cerifera) Nut RushPygmy Rattlesnake Saw palmetto (Scleria spp.)(Sistrurus milliarius) (Serenoa repens) RedrootHawk Guild (Lachnanthes caroliniana)(Buteo spp.) Yellow Eyed GrassBobwhite Quail (Xyris spp.)(Colinus virginianus) Pickerel WeedOpossum (Pontederia cordata)(Didelphis virginiana) Colic RootCotton Rat (Aletris lutea)(Sigmodon spp.) SundewRaccoon (Drosera spp.)(Procyon lotor) MilkwortStriped Skunk (Polygala spp.)(Mephitis mephitis) St. Johns Wort* Bobcat (Hypericum spp.)(Lynx rufus) Marsh Pink* Deer (Sabatia spp.)(Odocoileus virginianus) Hatpins* Cottontail Rabbit (Eriocaulon spp.)(Sylvilagus floridanus)
* - See Appendix A
HABITAT TYPE WILDLIFE UTILIZATION OVERSTORY/SHRUB SPP. GROUNDCOVER SPP. HYDROLOGY
Wet Prairie -# Leopard Frog * Slash Pine Wire Grass Duration of Inundation(Rana sphenocephala) (Pinus elliottii var. densa) (Aristida spp.) +0.7' for 2-5 months/yr.A3Cricket Frog * Wax Myrtle Beak Rush(Acris gryllus dorsalis) (Myrica cerifera) (Rhynchospora spp.)Black Racer Dahoon Holly Maidencane(Coluber c. priapus) (Ilex cassine) (Panicum hemitomon)Aquatic Turtle guild * Groundsel bush BlatterwortPygmy Rattlesnake (Baccharis hamilfolia) (Utricularia spp.)(Sistrurus milliarius) St. Johns WortHawk guild (Hypericum fasciculatum)Heron and Egret guild Marsh PinkWhite Ibis (Sabatia spp.)(Eudocimus albus) HatpinsKilldeer (Eriocaulon spp.)(Charadrius v. vociferus) SundewRed Winged Blackbird (Drosera capillaris)(Agelaius phoeniceus) Yellow Eyed GrassMarsh Rabbit (Xyris spp.)(Sylvilagus palustris) Water Drop-wortCotton Rat (Oxypolis filiformis)(Sigmondon spp.) Queen's Delight
(Stillingia aquatica)Mermaid-weed(Proserpinaca spp.)Giant plumegrass(Erianthus giganteus)
* - Species will invade during reduced hydroperiods or extended droughts.# -This term is used to describe shallow-depressional wetlands with sandy soils typically found in pine flatwoods communities. Others have used "wet prairie" to describe several different wetland communities in south Florida (e.g., Lodge, 1996).
HABITAT TYPE WILDLIFE UTILIZATION OVERSTORY/SHRUB SPP. GROUNDCOVER SPP. HYDROLOGY
Emergent Freshwater Cricket Frog Carolina Willow Pickerel Weed Period of InundationMarsh & Ponds (Acris gryllus dorsalis) (Salix caroliniana) (Pontederia spp.) 7-10 months/yr.
Leopard Frog Elderberry Cattail(Rana utricularia) (Sambucus canadensis) (Typha spp.)* Bullfrog Cypress Arrowhead(Rana catesbeiana) (Taxodium spp.) (Sagittaria spp.)Aquatic Turtle Guild Dahoon Holly Fire-flagWater Snake (Ilex cassine) (Thalia genticulata)(Natrix fasciata) Blackgum BulrushCottonmouth (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora) (Scirpus spp.)(Agkistrodon piscivorus) Buttonbush MaidencaneRibbon Snake (Cephalanthus occidentalis) (Panicum hemitomon)(Thamnophis spp.) Pond apple Ludwigia* American Alligator (Annona glabra) (Ludwigia spp.)(Alligator mississippiensis) St. Johns Wort*Heron and Egret Guild (Hypericum spp.)Florida Duck Beak Rush(Anas fulvigula) (Rhynchospora spp.)Snail Kite Sawgrass(Rostrhamus sociabilis) (Cladium jamaicensa)River Otter Spike Rush(Lutra canadensis) (Eleocharis spp.)
Soft Rush(Juncus spp.)Lake Rush(Fuirena spp.)Water Drop Wort(Oxypolis filiformis)Sedges(Cyperus spp.)
* - See Appendix A Smartweed(Polygonum spp.)
HABITAT TYPE WILDLIFE UTILIZATION OVERSTORY/SHRUB SPP. GROUNDCOVER SPP. HYDROLOGY
Mixed Hardwood Cricket Frog Bald/Pond Cypress Royal Fern Hydroperiod 4-11 monthsSwamps (Acris gryllus dorsalis) (Taxodium spp.) (Osmunda regalis)
Liitle Grass Frog Pond Apple Cinnamon Fern Depth of Inundation +2.5' (wet)(Limnaoedus ocularis) (Annona glabra) (Osmunda cinnamomea)* American Alligator Blackgum Swamp Fern Depth of Inundation -5' (dry)(Alligator mississippiensis)(Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora) (Blechnum serrulatum)Aquatic Turtle Guild Red Maple Chain FernEastern Mud Snake (Acer rubum) (Woodwardia spp.)(Farancia abacura) Button Bush Shield FernCottonmouth (Cephalanthus occidentalis) (Thelypteris spp.)(Agkistrodon piscivorus) Water Ash Arrow Arum* Barred Owl (Fraxinus caroliniana) (Peltandra virginica)(Strix varia) Slash Pine Lizard TailSwallow-tailed Kite (Pinus elliottii var. densa) (Saururus cernuus)(Elanoides f. forficatus) Wax Myrtle Pickerel Weed* Pileated Woodpecker (Myrica cerifera) (Pontederia spp.)(Hylatomus pileatus) Fetterbush Sphagnum MossGreat Horned Owl (Lyonia lucida) (Sphagnum spp.)(Bubo virginianus) Virginia Willow SawgrassWoodstork (Itea virginica) (Cladium jamaicense)(Mycteria americana) Carolina Willow Poison Ivy* Wood Duck (Salix caroliniana) (Toxicodendron radicans)(Aix sponsa) American Elm* Deer (Ulmus americana)(Odocoileus viriginianus) SweetgumRiver Otter (Liquidambar styraciflua)(Lutra canadensis) Swamp Laurel OakRaccoon (Quercus laurifolia)(Procyon lotor) Sweet BayBlack Bear (Magnolia virginiana)(Ursus americanus) Swamp Bay* Bobcat (Persea palustris)(Lynx rufus)
* - See Appendix A B-8
Depth of Inundation +2.5' (wet)
APPENDIX C
COMMON FRESHWATER FISHES OF SOUTHERN FLORIDA(List compiled by Dr. Alex Marsh, Department of Biological
Sciencies, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL)
Scientific name Common name______________________________________________________________________________________
Adinia xenica Diamond KillifishAmia calva BowfinAnguilla rostrata American EelAstronotus ocellatus * OscarBelonesox belizanus * Pike KillifishCentropomus undecimalis SnookCichla ocellaris * Peacock CichlidCichlasoma bimaculatum * Black AcaraCichlasoma citronellum * Midas CichlidCichlasoma octofasciatum * Jack DempseyCichlasoma uropthalmus * Mayan CichlidClarias bartrachus * Walking CatfishCyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead MinnowDiapterus plumieri Striped MojarraElassoma evergladei Everglades Pigmy SunfishEnneacanthus gloriosus Bluespotted SunfishErymizon sucetta Lake ChubsuckerEsox niger Chain PickeralEtheostoma fusiforme Scalyhead DarterFundulus chrysotus Golden TopminnowFundulus confluentus Marsh KillifishFundulus seminolis Seminole KillifishGambusia affinis MosquitofishHemichromis letourneauxi * American JewelfishHeterandria formosa Least KillifishIctalurus natalis Yellow bullheadJordonella floridae FlagfishLabidesthes sicculus Brook SilversideLepisosteus platyrhyncus Florida GarLepomis gulosus WarmouthLepomis macrochirus BluegillLepomis marginatus Dollar SunfishLepomis microlophus Redear SunfishLepomis punctatus Spotted SunfishLucania goodei Bluefin KillifishMicropterus salmoides Largemouth BassNotemigonus crysoleucas Golden ShinerNoturus gyrinus Tadpole MadtomPoecilia latipinna Sailfin MollyPterygoplichthys multiradiatus Sailfin CatfishOreochromis mariae * Blue TilapiaOreochromis mossambicus * Mozambique TilipiaTilapia mariae * Spotted Tilipia
(* Exotic species)C-1
D-1
APPENDIX DCOMMON AQUATIC INSECT TAXA
(Compiled by Dr. Alex Marsh, Department of BiologicalSciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL)
Order Plecoptera StonefliesOrder Ephemeroptera Mayflies
Order OdonataSuborder Anisoptera DragonfliesSuborder Zygoptera Damselflies
Order HemipteraFamily Hebridae Velvet water bugsFamily Hydrometridae Water measurersFamily Mesoveliidae Water treadersFamily Gerridae Water stridersFamily Veliidae Broad-shouldered
water stridersFamily Notonectidae BackswimmersFamily Pleidae Pigmy backswimmersFamily Naucoridae Creeping water bugsFamily Nepidae Water scorpionsFamily Belostomatidae Giant water bugsFamily Corixidae Water boatmen
Order MegalopteraFamily Sialidae AlderflyFamily Corydalidae Hellgrammite
Order Neuroptera Spongilla flies
Order Trichoptera Caddis flies
Order Lepidoptera (Pyrallidae) Aquatic caterpillars
Order ColeopteraFamily Haliplidae Crawling water beetlesFamily Dystiscidae Predaceous diving bettlesFamily Gyrinidae Whirligig beetlesFamily Hydrophilidae Water scavengersFamily Psephenidae Water penniesFamily Elmidae Riffle beetlesFamily Helodidae Marsh beetlesFamily Noteridae Burrowing water beetlesFamily Chrysomelidae Leaf beetlesFamily Dryopidae Long-toed water beetles
Order DipteraFamily Blepharoceridae Net-winged midgesFamily Tipulidae Crane fliesFamily Ptychopteridae Phatom crane fliesFamily Psychodidae Moth fliesFamily Dixidae Dixa midges
Order Diptera (Cont.)
D-2
Family Culicidae Mosquitoes,Phantom midges
Family Simulidae BlackfliesFamily Tendipedidae MidgesFamily Ceratopongidae Biting midgesFamily Stratiomyiidae SoldierfliesFamily Tabanidae Horseflies, deerfliesFamily Rhagionidae Snipe fliesFamily Syrphidae Rat-tailed maggotsFamily Tetanoceridae Marsh fliesFamily Ephydridae Shore flies
Appendix E
SOME COMMON EXOTIC AND NUISANCE PLANT SPECIESFOUND IN WETLANDS OF SOUTHERN FLORIDA(Includes Partial List of the Florida Exotic Pest Plant
Council's 1999 Most Invasive Species)
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PLANT FORM
alligator weed Alternantera philoxeroides herbshoebutton ardisia Ardisia elliptica shrub, small treebishopwood Bischofia javanica treepara grass Brachiaria mutica grassAustralian pine Casuarina equisetifolia treetaro Colocasia esculenta herbcarrotwood Cupaniopsis anacardioides treeair-potato Dioscorea bulbiflora vinewater hyacinth Eichornia crassipes herbSurinam cherry Eugenia uniflora shrub, small treeHydrilla Hydrilla verticillata submersed herbWest Indian marsh grass Hymenachne amplexicaulis grasswater primrose Ludwigia octovalvis herbprimrose willow Ludwigia peruviana herbJapanese climbing fern Lygodium japonicum vineold world climbing fern Lygodium microphyllum vineclimbing hempweed Mikania scandens vinemelaleuca Melaleuca quinquenervia treetorpedo grass Panicum repens grassbahia grass Paspalum notatum grasswater lettuce Pistia stratiotes herbguava Psidium guajava treedowny rose myrtle Rhodomyrtus tomentosa shrubChinese tallow Sapium secunotatum treeBrazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius treeclimbing cassia Senna pendula shrubJava plum Syzygium cumini treeseaside mahoe Thespesia populnea treecattail Typha spp. herbCaesar's weed Urena lobata herbwedelia Wedelia trilobata herb
E-1
Appendix F WRAP Dataset
PERMIT NO. PROJECT DATE EVALUATOR WETLAND TYPE LANDUSE WU O/S GC BUFF E&N HYD WQ WRAP4390018 WEST JENSEN 06/11/96 BG WP/24 UNDEV 2.50 N/A 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 0.864390018 WEST JENSEN 06/11/96 BN WP/24 UNDEV 3.00 N/A 2.50 2.50 2.00 3.00 3.00 0.894390018 WEST JENSEN 06/11/96 RM WP/24 UNDEV 2.50 N/A 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 0.864300672 HIDDEN OAKS 06/11/96 BG HM/CREATED INSTIT. 2.00 N/A 1.50 1.50 1.00 2.00 1.60 0.534300672 HIDDEN OAKS 06/11/96 BN HM/CREATED INSTIT. 1.00 N/A 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.70 0.544300672 HIDDEN OAKS 06/11/96 RM HM/CREATED INSTIT. 1.50 N/A 1.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 1.70 0.514300196 HIGH MEADOWS 06/01/96 RM MM/CREATED HIGHWAY 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.50 2.00 1.00 0.574300196 HIGH MEADOWS 06/01/96 BN MM/CREATED HIGHWAY 1.50 2.00 2.50 1.00 2.50 2.00 1.00 0.594300196 HIGH MEADOWS 06/01/96 BG MM/CREATED HIGHWAY 1.50 1.00 2.50 0.50 3.00 3.00 1.00 0.59N/A DWP-STUMP 07/23/96 LMG HM AG/PASTURE 1.50 N/A 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.00 0.64N/A DWP-STUMP 07/23/96 BG HM AG/PASTURE 2.00 N/A 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 1.50 0.58N/A LLK2-TCP 07/25/96 BG WP UNDEV/CITRUS 2.50 N/A 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.89N/A LLK2-TCP 07/25/96 LMG WP UNDEV/CITRUS 3.00 N/A 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.80 0.96MIT.BANK LLGSMB 07/24/96 LMG MH AG/CITRUS 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 0.83MIT.BANK LLGSMB 07/24/96 BG MH AG/CITRUS 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.50 1.50 0.81
50- FOREST HILL NRS 11/25/96 RM MM AG/ROW 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 0.5650- FOREST HILL NRS 11/25/96 BR MM AG/ROW 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 0.5850- FOREST HILL NRS 11/25/96 BG MM AG/ROW 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 0.56
5001161 PB PK OF COMM 11/25/96 RM EM IND 2.00 N/A 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.75 0.625001161 PB PK OF COMM 11/25/96 BR EM IND 2.50 N/A 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 0.685001161 PB PK OF COMM 11/25/96 BG EM IND 2.00 N/A 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.75 0.635000618 SARATOGA/WLB 11/25/96 RM WP SF/RES 2.00 N/A 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.80 0.665000618 SARATOGA/WLB 11/25/96 BR WP SF/RES 1.50 N/A 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.80 0.685000618 SARATOGA/WLB 11/25/96 BG WP SF/RES 1.50 N/A 2.00 1.00 2.50 2.00 2.80 0.665000618 SARATOGA/115AC 11/25/96 RM MM SF/RES 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 1.50 2.50 2.80 0.755000618 SARATOGA/115AC 11/25/96 BR MM SF/RES 2.50 1.50 2.00 2.50 1.00 2.00 2.80 0.685000618 SARATOGA/115AC 11/25/96 BG MM SF/RES 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 2.50 2.80 0.735001161 PK OF COMM/C8 11/25/96 RM EM IND 2.00 N/A 2.50 3.00 2.50 2.50 3.00 0.865001161 PK OF COMM/C8 11/25/96 BR EM IND 2.00 N/A 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 0.815001161 PK OF COMM/C8 11/25/96 BG EM IND 2.00 N/A 2.00 3.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 0.865600573 LK. HEATHERWD 11/22/96 RM EM SF/RES 1.50 N/A 1.50 0.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 0.505600573 LK. HEATHERWD 11/22/96 BR EM SF/RES 2.00 N/A 1.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.505600573 LK. HEATHERWD 11/22/96 BG EM SF/RES 1.00 N/A 1.50 0.50 1.00 2.50 2.00 0.475600573 LK. HEATHERWD 11/22/96 BN EM SF/RES 1.00 N/A 1.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.45
W. JENSEN/WL24 11/22/96 BG WP SF/RES/GC 2.00 N/A 2.50 1.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.72W. JENSEN/WL24 11/22/96 BN WP SF/RES/GC 2.50 N/A 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.81W. JENSEN/WL24 11/22/96 BR WP SF/RES/GC 2.00 N/A 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.50 0.75W. JENSEN/WL24 11/22/96 RM WP SF/RES/GC 2.50 N/A 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 0.72
5600573 SCHOOL CCC 11/22/96 RM EM/CREATED INST. 2.00 N/A 2.50 0.50 2.00 2.00 0.50 0.535600573 SCHOOL CCC 11/22/96 BR EM/CREATED INST. 2.50 N/A 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.50 0.565600573 SCHOOL CCC 11/22/96 BG EM/CREATED INST. 1.50 N/A 2.50 1.00 2.50 2.50 0.50 0.585600573 SCHOOL CCC 11/22/96 BN EM/CREATED INST. 1.50 N/A 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.50 0.50 0.534300196 HIGH MED. AVE 11/22/96 RM FORESTED/PRES HWY 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.50 2.50 2.00 1.50 0.594300196 HIGH MED. AVE 11/22/96 BR FORESTED/PRES HWY 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 0.524300196 HIGH MED. AVE 11/22/96 BG FORESTED/PRES HWY 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.50 2.50 2.50 1.50 0.524300196 HIGH MED. AVE 11/22/96 BN FORESTED/PRES HWY 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 0.554300196 HIGH MED. AVE 11/22/96 BR MM/CREATED HWY 2.50 2.50 3.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 1.50 0.734300196 HIGH MED. AVE 11/22/96 RM MM/CREATED HWY 1.50 1.50 2.50 1.00 2.50 2.50 1.50 0.624300196 HIGH MED. AVE 11/22/96 BG MM/CREATED HWY 1.50 2.00 3.00 0.50 3.00 2.50 1.50 0.664300196 HIGH MED. AVE 11/22/96 BN MM/CREATED HWY 1.50 2.00 2.50 1.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 0.62
HIDDEN OAKS 11/22/96 RM EM/CREATED INST 2.00 N/A 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.95 0.61
App_F..xls Page 1
PERMIT NO. PROJECT DATE EVALUATOR WETLAND TYPE LANDUSE WU O/S GC BUFF E&N HYD WQ WRAPHIDDEN OAKS 11/22/96 BN EM/CREATED INST 1.50 N/A 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.95 0.61HIDDEN OAKS 11/22/96 BR EM/CREATED INST 2.50 N/A 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.95 0.66HIDDEN OAKS 11/22/96 BG EM/CREATED INST 1.50 N/A 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.50 1.95 0.61E. ORG. CO. 12/10/96 LM FORESTED WASTEWATER 2.50 1.50 1.50 2.50 1.00 1.50 0.75 0.54E. ORG. CO. 12/10/96 LG FORESTED WASTEWATER 3.00 1.50 1.50 3.00 1.00 1.50 0.75 0.63E. ORG. CO. 12/10/96 BG FORESTED WASTEWATER 2.50 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.50 1.00 0.75 0.51MEAD GARDENS 12/10/96 BG FORESTED/BAY REC 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.00 2.50 0.69 0.46MEAD GARDENS 12/10/96 LG FORESTED/BAY REC 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.00 2.50 0.69 0.44MEAD GARDENS 12/10/96 LM FORESTED/BAY REC 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.50 0.00 2.50 0.69 0.47LK. ADAIR/DITCH 12/10/96 BG CHNNL STREAM SF/HWY 1.00 N/A 1.00 0.50 2.00 2.00 0.63 0.40LK. ADAIR/DITCH 12/10/96 LG CHNNL STREAM SF/HWY 0.50 N/A 0.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 0.63 0.40LK. ADAIR/DITCH 12/10/96 LM CHNNL STREAM SF/HWY 0.50 N/A 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.63 0.37LK. ADAIR 12/10/96 BG LAKE SF/HWY 1.00 2.00 1.50 0.50 2.00 2.00 0.63 0.46LK. ADAIR 12/10/96 LM LAKE SF/HWY 2.00 2.00 0.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.63 0.48LK. ADAIR 12/10/96 LG LAKE SF/HWY 2.00 1.50 0.50 0.50 2.50 2.50 0.63 0.48E. ORG. CO. 12/10/96 BG EM WASTE WATER 2.50 N/A 1.00 2.50 1.00 1.50 0.75 0.51E. ORG. CO. 12/10/96 LG EM WASTE WATER 2.50 N/A 1.00 3.00 0.50 2.00 0.75 0.54E. ORG. CO. 12/10/96 LM EM WASTE WATER 2.00 N/A 1.00 2.00 0.50 2.00 0.75 0.46E. ORG. CO. 12/10/96 LM MH/CONTROL WASTE WATER 2.50 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 3.00 0.93E. ORG. CO. 12/10/96 BG MH/CONTROL WASTE WATER 2.50 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 3.00 0.93E. ORG. CO. 12/10/96 LG MH/CONTROL WASTE WATER 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 0.98E.W. EXPWY 12/10/96 LM MM/RESTOR. HWY 1.50 1.50 2.50 1.50 2.50 1.50 2.38 0.64E.W. EXPWY 12/10/96 LG MM/RESTOR. HWY 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.50 2.38 0.57E.W. EXPWY 12/10/96 BG MM/RESTOR. HWY 1.50 1.00 2.50 1.50 2.50 2.00 2.38 0.64E.W EXP/ROUSE 12/10/96 LM CYP HWY 1.00 3.00 3.00 0.50 3.00 2.50 1.30 0.68E.W EXP/ROUSE 12/10/96 LG CYP HWY 1.50 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 1.30 0.70E.W EXP/ROUSE 12/10/96 BG CYP HWY 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.50 2.00 1.30 0.56CNTRY CRK J&K 12/11/96 LM RIP/FOREST REC 2.50 2.50 1.50 2.50 2.00 3.00 2.25 0.73CNTRY CRK J&K 12/11/96 CG RIP/FOREST REC 2.00 2.50 1.50 2.50 2.00 3.00 2.25 0.75CNTRY CRK J&K 12/11/96 LG RIP/FOREST REC 2.50 2.50 1.50 2.50 2.00 3.00 2.25 0.73CNTRY CRK J&K 12/11/96 BG RIP/FOREST REC 2.50 2.50 1.50 2.50 2.00 3.00 2.25 0.77LK. LOTUS 12/11/96 BG MH RES 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 3.00 2.50 0.93LK. LOTUS 12/11/96 LM MH RES 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 0.95LK. LOTUS 12/11/96 CG MH RES 2.70 3.00 2.70 2.70 2.70 3.00 2.50 0.92LK. LOTUS 12/11/96 LG MH RES 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.50 0.95LK. COMO 12/11/96 CG EM RES/SF 2.00 N/A 1.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 1.69 0.54LK. COMO 12/11/96 LM EM RES/SF 2.00 N/A 1.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.69 0.57LK. COMO 12/11/96 LG EM RES/SF 2.00 N/A 1.50 1.50 1.00 2.50 1.69 0.57LK. COMO 12/11/96 BG EM RES/SF 2.00 N/A 1.50 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.69 0.57CHASE GROVE 12/11/96 BG MH RES/MF 1.00 3.00 2.50 1.50 2.50 2.50 2.13 0.72CHASE GROVE 12/11/96 LM MH RES/MF 1.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 2.13 0.79CHASE GROVE 12/11/96 CG MH RES/MF 1.50 3.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.13 0.73CHASE GROVE 12/11/96 LG MH RES/MF 1.00 3.00 2.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.13 0.67ALHAMBRA 12/19/96 BR EM RES/SF 0.50 N/A 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.50 1.25 0.35ALHAMBRA 12/19/96 GS EM RES/SF 0.50 N/A 1.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 1.25 0.43ALHAMBRA 12/19/96 RM EM RES/SF 0.50 N/A 1.00 0.00 2.50 2.00 1.25 0.40ALHAMBRA 12/19/96 DB EM RES/SF 0.50 N/A 0.50 0.50 1.50 2.00 1.25 0.34ALHAMBRA 12/19/96 BG EM RES/SF 0.50 N/A 1.00 0.50 2.00 2.00 1.25 0.40
0601978 ESTANCIA/ENTR 12/19/96 BR MM RES/SF 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.500601978 ESTANCIA/ENTR 12/19/96 BG MM RES/SF 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.500601978 ESTANCIA/ENTR 12/19/96 RM MM RES/SF 1.00 1.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 0.520601978 ESTANCIA/ENTR 12/19/96 DB MM RES/SF 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.50 2.00 0.54
App_F..xls Page 2
PERMIT NO. PROJECT DATE EVALUATOR WETLAND TYPE LANDUSE WU O/S GC BUFF E&N HYD WQ WRAP0601978 ESTANCIA/ENTR 12/19/96 GS MM RES/SF 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.50 1.50 2.00 0.520601978 ESTANCIA/PRES. 12/19/96 RM MM RES/SF 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 0.520601978 ESTANCIA/PRES. 12/19/96 BG MM RES/SF 1.50 0.50 1.50 0.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 0.450601978 ESTANCIA/PRES. 12/19/96 DB MM RES/SF 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.570601978 ESTANCIA/PRES. 12/19/96 GS MM RES/SF 1.50 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.550601978 ESTANCIA/PRES. 12/19/96 BR MM RES/SF 2.00 1.50 1.50 0.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 0.500601401 WALDEN LK. W. 12/19/96 BR EM RES/SF 1.50 N/A 2.00 0.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.560601401 WALDEN LK. W. 12/19/96 DB EM RES/SF 1.50 N/A 1.50 0.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.530601401 WALDEN LK. W. 12/19/96 GS EM RES/SF 1.50 N/A 2.00 0.00 3.00 2.50 2.00 0.610601401 WALDEN LK. W. 12/19/96 BG EM RES/SF 1.00 N/A 2.00 0.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 0.520601401 WALDEN LK. W. 12/19/96 RM EM RES/SF 1.00 N/A 2.00 0.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 0.533600258 McMGR BAPT, CH. 11/12/96 KF MM INST 2.50 2.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 3.00 2.94 0.883600258 McMGR BAPT, CH. 11/12/96 SB (COE) MM INST 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.94 0.783600258 McMGR BAPT, CH. 11/12/96 DD MM INST 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.00 3.00 2.94 0.813602271 N. RIVER EST. 11/07/96 KF EM RES/LD 2.50 N/A 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.30 0.933602271 N. RIVER EST. 11/07/96 HH EM RES/LD 3.00 N/A 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.30 0.903602271 N. RIVER EST. 11/07/96 JM EM RES/LD 3.00 N/A 2.50 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.30 0.903602271 N. RIVER EST. 11/07/96 SD EM RES/LD 3.00 N/A 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.30 0.901100737 COLLIERS PRES. 10/24/96 KF HP RES/SF 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.33 0.851100737 COLLIERS PRES. 10/24/96 DM HP RES/SF 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.33 0.751100737 COLLIERS PRES. 10/24/96 HH HP RES/SF 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.33 0.781100737 COLLIERS PRES. 10/24/96 JM HP RES/SF 2.50 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.33 0.803602618 DEL PRADO BLVD 09/26/96 DD EM HWY 2.50 N/A 3.00 2.50 2.50 3.00 3.00 0.923602618 DEL PRADO BLVD 09/26/96 SD EM HWY 3.00 N/A 2.50 3.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 0.943602618 DEL PRADO BLVD 09/26/96 KF EM HWY 3.00 N/A 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 3.00 0.923602618 DEL PRADO BLVD 09/26/96 HH EM HWY 3.00 N/A 3.00 2.50 2.50 3.00 3.00 0.943600853 J. JASSEY VEG. 11/21/96 HH CYP/MIT AG/ROW 1.50 0.50 1.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.38 0.473600853 J. JASSEY VEG. 11/21/96 SD CYP/MIT AG/ROW 1.50 0.50 1.50 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.38 0.523600853 J. JASSEY VEG. 11/21/96 KF CYP/MIT AG/ROW 2.00 0.50 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.38 0.573600853 J. JASSEY VEG. 11/21/96 DM CYP/MIT AG/ROW 1.50 0.50 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.50 1.38 0.523602411 SIX MILE OMNI 11/21/96 DM CYP AG/FALLOW 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.50 2.00 0.50 0.573602411 SIX MILE OMNI 11/21/96 SD CYP AG/FALLOW 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.50 0.603602411 SIX MILE OMNI 11/21/96 HH CYP AG/FALLOW 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.50 0.553602411 SIX MILE OMNI 11/21/96 KF CYP AG/FALLOW 2.00 2.50 2.50 0.50 2.00 3.00 0.50 0.623601077 OLDE HICKORY 11/21/96 SD WP RES/MF 2.00 N/A 3.00 1.00 2.50 2.00 2.25 0.713601077 OLDE HICKORY 11/21/96 DM WP RES/MF 1.50 N/A 1.50 1.00 2.50 2.50 2.25 0.633601077 OLDE HICKORY 11/21/96 HH WP RES/MF 1.50 N/A 2.00 1.50 2.50 2.50 2.25 0.683601077 OLDE HICKORY 11/21/96 KF WP RES/MF 1.50 N/A 2.50 1.00 2.50 2.50 2.25 0.683601223 COLONIAL BLVD 11/21/96 KF CYP/MIT HWY 2.00 0.50 2.00 2.50 1.50 3.00 3.00 0.693601223 COLONIAL BLVD 11/21/96 HH CYP/MIT HWY 2.50 1.00 1.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 3.00 0.693601223 COLONIAL BLVD 11/21/96 SD CYP/MIT HWY 2.00 0.50 1.50 2.50 1.00 3.00 3.00 0.643601223 COLONIAL BLVD 11/21/96 DM CYP/MIT HWY 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.50 1.00 3.00 3.00 0.693601634 R. POWELL AG 10/10/96 KF CYP/MIT AG 2.00 0.50 2.50 3.00 2.00 1.50 2.75 0.683601634 R. POWELL AG 10/10/96 HH CYP/MIT AG 1.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.75 0.583601634 R. POWELL AG 10/10/96 SD CYP/MIT AG 2.00 1.50 1.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.75 0.703601634 R. POWELL AG 10/10/96 DD CYP/MIT AG 1.50 0.50 2.50 3.00 1.50 1.50 2.75 0.633601267 AIRSIDE PLAZA 10/10/96 KF MM/MIT LICOMM 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.38 0.733601267 AIRSIDE PLAZA 10/10/96 SD MM/MIT LICOMM 1.50 1.50 2.50 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.38 0.703601267 AIRSIDE PLAZA 10/10/96 HH MM/MIT LICOMM 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.38 0.713601267 AIRSIDE PLAZA 10/10/96 DD MM/MIT LICOMM 2.00 1.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 2.40 0.783601396 HERONS GLEN 09/26/96 KF WP RES/SF 2.50 N/A 2.50 2.00 1.00 2.50 2.80 0.743601396 HERONS GLEN 09/26/96 HH WP RES/SF 2.00 N/A 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.80 0.77
App_F..xls Page 3
PERMIT NO. PROJECT DATE EVALUATOR WETLAND TYPE LANDUSE WU O/S GC BUFF E&N HYD WQ WRAP3601396 HERONS GLEN 09/26/96 SD WP RES/SF 2.00 N/A 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.80 0.743601396 HERONS GLEN 09/26/96 DD WP RES/SF 2.50 N/A 2.50 2.00 1.50 3.00 2.80 0.803602926 SHELL PIT INC. 09/26/96 KF WP IND 1.50 N/A 2.50 2.50 1.50 2.50 3.00 0.753602926 SHELL PIT INC. 09/26/96 HH WP IND 2.00 N/A 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 0.813602926 SHELL PIT INC. 09/26/96 DD WP IND 1.50 N/A 2.50 2.50 1.50 3.00 3.00 0.783602926 SHELL PIT INC. 09/26/96 SD WP IND 1.50 N/A 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 0.813601396 HERONS GLEN 09/26/96 KF EM RES/SF/GC 2.50 2.00 2.50 0.50 1.50 2.00 1.13 0.583601396 HERONS GLEN 09/26/96 SD EM RES/SF/GC 3.00 2.00 2.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.13 0.513601396 HERONS GLEN 09/26/96 DD EM RES/SF/GC 2.00 1.50 2.00 0.50 1.50 2.00 1.13 0.513601396 HERONS GLEN 09/26/96 HH EM RES/SF/GC 2.50 2.00 2.00 0.50 1.00 2.00 1.13 0.593602736 WALMART 11/07/96 SD EM HICOMM 2.00 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.70 0.583602736 WALMART 11/07/96 HH EM HICOMM 1.00 1.50 2.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.70 0.563602736 WALMART 11/07/96 KF EM HICOMM 1.50 2.00 2.50 1.50 2.50 2.00 1.70 0.653602736 WALMART 11/07/96 JM EM HICOMM 1.50 1.50 2.50 1.00 2.50 1.50 1.70 0.58
ENERGY RECOVR 11/07/96 KF MH/MIT IND 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 1.50 2.10 0.60ENERGY RECOVR 11/07/96 JM MH/MIT IND 2.50 0.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.50 2.10 0.67ENERGY RECOVR 11/07/96 HH MH/MIT IND 2.50 0.50 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.60 0.70ENERGY RECOVR 11/07/96 SD MH/MIT IND 2.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.60 0.70
1101367 TURTLE CREEK 10/24/96 KF HP RES/MF 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.75 0.871101367 TURTLE CREEK 10/24/96 DM HP RES/MF 2.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.75 0.921101367 TURTLE CREEK 10/24/96 HH HP RES/MF 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.75 0.851101367 TURTLE CREEK 10/24/96 JM HP RES/MF 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.75 0.891100900 RAILHD. IND. PK. 10/24/96 KF WP IND 2.00 N/A 3.00 2.50 2.50 3.00 2.70 0.871100900 RAILHD. IND. PK. 10/24/96 DM WP IND 2.00 N/A 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.70 0.821100900 RAILHD. IND. PK. 10/24/96 HH WP IND 2.00 N/A 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 2.70 0.841100900 RAILHD. IND. PK. 10/24/96 JM WP IND 2.00 N/A 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.70 0.821100556 951 COMM. CTR. 10/03/96 KF WP LICOMM 2.50 N/A 2.50 2.00 0.50 2.50 2.25 0.741100556 951 COMM. CTR. 10/03/96 JM WP LICOMM 1.50 N/A 2.00 1.50 1.50 2.50 2.25 0.631100556 951 COMM. CTR. 10/03/96 HH WP LICOMM 1.50 N/A 2.00 1.50 2.50 2.00 2.25 0.651100556 951 COMM. CTR. 10/03/96 DD WP LICOMM 2.00 N/A 2.50 1.50 1.50 2.50 2.38 0.699604125 HERON PK. APTS. 10/03/96 JM CYP/PN RES/MF 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.50 1.00 2.00 1.94 0.409604125 HERON PK. APTS. 10/03/96 HH CYP/PN RES/MF 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.539604125 HERON PK. APTS. 10/03/96 KF CYP/PN RES/MF 1.50 0.50 0.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.94 0.409604125 HERON PK. APTS. 10/03/96 DD CYP/PN RES/MF 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.50 1.00 2.50 1.94 0.433600142 LEHIGH ACRES 11/07/96 HH EM HICOMM 2.50 2.00 3.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.50 0.883600142 LEHIGH ACRES 11/07/96 JM EM HICOMM 2.50 2.00 3.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.50 0.883600142 LEHIGH ACRES 11/07/96 SD EM HICOMM 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.50 0.793600142 LEHIGH ACRES 11/07/96 KF EM HICOMM 2.00 2.50 3.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.50 0.889608123 THE CLUB EST. 10/03/96 KF CYP/PN RES/SF/UNDEV 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.50 2.00 2.63 0.609608123 THE CLUB EST. 10/03/96 DD CYP/PN RES/SF/UNDEV 1.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 1.00 2.00 2.63 0.679608123 THE CLUB EST. 10/03/96 JM CYP/PN RES/SF/UNDEV 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.63 0.629608123 THE CLUB EST. 10/03/96 HH CYP/PN RES/SF/UNDEV 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.50 0.50 2.00 2.63 0.633600033 DANIELS PKWY 10/10/96 KF WP/MIT HWY 2.00 N/A 1.50 3.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 0.783600033 DANIELS PKWY 10/10/96 HH WP/MIT HWY 1.00 N/A 2.00 2.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.643600033 DANIELS PKWY 10/10/96 DD WP/MIT HWY 2.50 N/A 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.753600033 DANIELS PKWY 10/10/96 SD WP/MIT HWY 2.50 N/A 1.50 3.00 2.50 2.50 3.00 0.839608197 RIVER BRIDGE 11/12/96 DD MM RES/GC 0.50 2.00 2.00 2.50 0.50 2.50 3.00 0.629608197 RIVER BRIDGE 11/12/96 SB(COE) MM RES/GC 0.50 2.00 3.00 3.00 0.50 3.00 3.00 0.679608197 RIVER BRIDGE 11/12/96 KF MM RES/GC 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.553602915 NFM COMM. PK. 10/10/96 KF EM REC 1.50 1.00 0.50 2.00 2.50 0.50 2.70 0.513602915 NFM COMM. PK. 10/10/96 DD EM REC 1.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.70 0.563602915 NFM COMM. PK. 10/10/96 SD EM REC 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.70 0.463601809 CRISAFULLI SERV 10/03/96 KF MM HICOMM 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.50 0.00 0.50 2.75 0.30
App_F..xls Page 4
PERMIT NO. PROJECT DATE EVALUATOR WETLAND TYPE LANDUSE WU O/S GC BUFF E&N HYD WQ WRAP3601809 CRISAFULLI SERV 10/03/96 HH MM HICOMM 0.50 1.00 0.50 2.00 1.00 0.50 2.75 0.393601809 CRISAFULLI SERV 10/03/96 JM MM HICOMM 0.50 1.00 0.50 2.00 0.50 0.50 2.75 0.373601809 CRISAFULLI SERV 10/03/96 DD MM HICOMM 0.50 1.00 0.50 2.00 0.00 0.50 2.75 0.343602643 MANATEE PK. 10/10/96 KF MH REC 2.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 2.50 0.363602643 MANATEE PK. 10/10/96 SD MH REC 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 2.50 0.313602643 MANATEE PK. 10/10/96 DD MH REC 1.50 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 2.50 0.382600535 MILLS RANCH 31-2 01/21/97 RM EM AG/SUGAR 2.50 N/A 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.25 0.742600535 MILLS RANCH 31-2 01/21/97 BG EM AG/SUGAR 2.50 N/A 2.00 2.50 2.50 3.00 2.25 0.822600535 MILLS RANCH 31-2 01/21/97 BR EM AG/SUGAR 2.50 N/A 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.25 0.762600535 MILLS RANCH 31-2 01/21/97 BN EM AG/SUGAR 2.50 N/A 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.25 0.742600299 DEVILS G. DET-3 01/21/97 RM CYP AG/CITRUS 2.50 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 0.572600299 DEVILS G. DET-3 01/21/97 BN CYP AG/CITRUS 2.00 2.50 1.00 0.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 0.552600299 DEVILS G. DET-3 01/21/97 BG CYP AG/CITRUS 2.00 2.50 1.00 2.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 0.602600299 DEVILS G. DET-3 01/21/97 BR CYP AG/CITRUS 2.50 2.50 1.00 2.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 0.622600535 MILLS RANCH 19-7 01/21/97 RM EM AG/SUGAR 1.50 N/A 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.25 0.602600535 MILLS RANCH 19-7 01/21/97 BG EM AG/SUGAR 2.00 N/A 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.25 0.652600535 MILLS RANCH 19-7 01/21/97 BN EM AG/SUGAR 2.00 N/A 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 2.25 0.542600535 MILLS RANCH 19-7 01/21/97 BR EM AG/SUGAR 3.00 N/A 1.50 2.50 1.00 1.00 2.25 0.632600535 MILLS RANCH 20-14 01/21/97 BN EM AG/SUGAR 2.50 N/A 2.50 1.00 2.50 2.50 2.25 0.742600535 MILLS RANCH 20-14 01/21/97 RM EM AG/SUGAR 2.00 N/A 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 2.25 0.682600535 MILLS RANCH 20-14 01/21/97 BG EM AG/SUGAR 2.00 N/A 2.50 1.50 2.50 2.50 2.25 0.742600535 MILLS RANCH 20-14 01/21/97 BR EM AG/SUGAR 2.00 N/A 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.25 0.742600535 MILLS RANCH 20-13 01/21/97 BR EM AG/SUGAR 2.50 N/A 2.50 1.50 2.50 2.00 2.25 0.742600535 MILLS RANCH 20-13 01/21/97 BG EM AG/SUGAR 2.50 N/A 3.00 1.50 3.00 2.50 2.25 0.822600535 MILLS RANCH 20-13 01/21/97 BN EM AG/SUGAR 2.50 N/A 2.50 1.00 2.50 2.50 2.25 0.742600535 MILLS RANCH 20-13 01/21/97 RM EM AG/SUGAR 2.50 N/A 3.00 0.50 2.50 3.00 2.25 0.792600299 DEVILS G. #2 01/21/97 RM EM AG/CITRUS 2.50 N/A 1.00 1.50 2.00 1.50 2.00 0.582600299 DEVILS G. #2 01/21/97 BG EM AG/CITRUS 2.00 N/A 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 0.582600299 DEVILS G. #2 01/21/97 BR EM AG/CITRUS 2.50 N/A 2.00 1.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.612600299 DEVILS G. #2 01/21/97 BN EM AG/CITRUS 2.50 N/A 1.50 0.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 0.56
ACME COMPLEX 01/22/97 RM MM INST 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.50 3.00 0.33ACME COMPLEX 01/22/97 BN MM INST 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 3.00 0.33ACME COMPLEX 01/22/97 BR MM INST 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 3.00 0.36CRIMINAL COMPLX 01/22/97 RM EM INST 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 2.00 0.48CRIMINAL COMPLX 01/22/97 BG EM INST 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.48CRIMINAL COMPLX 01/22/97 BN EM INST 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.43CRIMINAL COMPLX 01/22/97 BR EM INST 2.00 1.00 1.50 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.45
5002754 FEST. SHOPPES 01/22/97 RM MM REC 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 0.765002754 FEST. SHOPPES 01/22/97 BN MM REC 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.00 0.755002754 FEST. SHOPPES 01/22/97 BG MM REC 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 0.745002754 FEST. SHOPPES 01/22/97 BR MM REC 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.50 2.50 3.00 0.765003078 JUP COMM PK 01/22/97 BR MM REC 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 0.645003078 JUP COMM PK 01/22/97 RM MM REC 2.00 1.50 1.00 2.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.625003078 JUP COMM PK 01/22/97 BG MM REC 2.00 1.00 1.50 2.50 1.50 2.50 3.00 0.645003078 JUP COMM PK 01/22/97 BN MM REC 2.00 1.50 1.00 2.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 0.675003356 SCHOOL HHH 01/22/97 RM MM INST 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.00 2.50 2.00 2.25 0.705003356 SCHOOL HHH 01/22/97 BN MM INST 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.25 0.685003356 SCHOOL HHH 01/22/97 BR MM INST 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.25 0.714300848 FLORIDA CLUB 01/30/97 BG EM/CREATED RES/GC 1.50 N/A 2.00 0.50 2.00 2.50 1.25 0.544300848 FLORIDA CLUB 01/30/97 BN EM/CREATED RES/GC 1.50 N/A 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.25 0.574300848 FLORIDA CLUB 01/30/97 RM EM/CREATED RES/GC 1.50 N/A 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.50 1.25 0.574300848 FLORIDA CLUB 01/30/97 BG EM/12 RES/GC 2.00 N/A 2.50 1.50 2.00 2.50 1.50 0.674300848 FLORIDA CLUB 01/30/97 RM EM/12 RES/GC 2.00 N/A 2.50 1.50 2.00 2.50 1.50 0.67
App_F..xls Page 5
PERMIT NO. PROJECT DATE EVALUATOR WETLAND TYPE LANDUSE WU O/S GC BUFF E&N HYD WQ WRAP4300848 FLORIDA CLUB 01/30/97 BN EM/12 RES/GC 2.00 N/A 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.50 1.50 0.694300848 FLORIDA CLUB 01/30/97 RM EM/14G RES/GC 2.50 N/A 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.13 0.764300848 FLORIDA CLUB 01/30/97 BN EM/14G RES/GC 2.50 N/A 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.13 0.734300848 FLORIDA CLUB 01/30/97 BG EM/14G RES/GC 2.00 N/A 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.13 0.764300529 SOUTHWOOD 01/30/97 BG EM RES/SF 2.00 N/A 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.50 2.46 0.754300529 SOUTHWOOD 01/30/97 RM EM RES/SF 1.50 N/A 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.46 0.694300529 SOUTHWOOD 01/30/97 BN EM RES/SF 2.00 N/A 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 2.46 0.694300115 JENSEN PK. EST. 01/30/97 BG EM/CREATED RES/SF 1.50 N/A 2.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 1.25 0.514300115 JENSEN PK. EST. 01/30/97 RM EM/CREATED RES/SF 1.50 N/A 2.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 1.25 0.514300115 JENSEN PK. EST. 01/30/97 BN EM/CREATED RES/SF 1.50 N/A 1.50 0.50 1.50 2.00 1.25 0.465601136 OAKS @ I.R. 01/30/97 BN MM RES/SF 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 2.00 2.65 0.585601136 OAKS @ I.R. 01/30/97 RM MM RES/SF 1.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.65 0.555601136 OAKS @ I.R. 01/30/97 BG MM RES/SF 1.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.65 0.585600274 MIDPORT PARK 01/30/97 RM EM REC 2.00 N/A 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.50 2.25 0.545600274 MIDPORT PARK 01/30/97 BG EM REC 1.50 N/A 1.50 2.00 1.00 1.50 2.25 0.545600274 MIDPORT PARK 01/30/97 BN EM REC 1.50 N/A 1.50 2.00 1.00 1.50 2.25 0.545600680 OUTLET MALL 01/30/97 RM EM/3 HICOMM 1.50 N/A 1.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 1.25 0.495600680 OUTLET MALL 01/30/97 BG EM/3 HICOMM 1.50 N/A 1.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.25 0.515600680 OUTLET MALL 01/30/97 BN EM/3 HICOMM 1.50 N/A 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.25 0.545600680 OUTLET MALL 01/30/97 BN EM/2 HICOMM 1.00 N/A 1.50 0.50 1.50 2.00 0.75 0.405600680 OUTLET MALL 01/30/97 RM EM/2 HICOMM 1.00 N/A 1.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.75 0.385600680 OUTLET MALL 01/30/97 BG EM/2 HICOMM 1.00 N/A 1.50 0.50 1.50 2.00 0.75 0.403603165 CALOOSA. RIV.PK. 01/24/97 KF EM/POND REC 3.00 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.13 0.793603165 CALOOSA. RIV.PK. 01/24/97 HH EM/POND REC 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.40 0.783603165 CALOOSA. RIV.PK. 01/24/97 DD EM/POND REC 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.40 0.833603165 CALOOSA. RIV.PK. 01/24/97 JM EM/POND REC 3.00 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.40 0.783603165 CALOOSA. RIV.PK. 01/24/97 DM EM/POND REC 3.00 2.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 2.40 0.833603165 CALOOSA. RIV.PK. 01/24/97 HY EM/POND REC 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.40 0.78960110-14 6 MILE MIT. BNK. 01/24/97 HH FORESTED REC 1.00 0.50 1.50 1.50 0.50 1.00 1.75 0.37960110-14 6 MILE MIT. BNK. 01/24/97 KF FORESTED REC 0.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.36960110-14 6 MILE MIT. BNK. 01/24/97 DD FORESTED REC 0.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.36960110-14 6 MILE MIT. BNK. 01/24/97 JM FORESTED REC 0.50 0.50 1.50 2.00 0.50 1.50 1.75 0.39960110-14 6 MILE MIT. BNK. 01/24/97 DM FORESTED REC 0.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.50 1.75 0.34960110-14 6 MILE MIT. BNK. 01/24/97 SB FORESTED REC 1.00 0.00 2.50 2.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.40960110-14 6 MILE MIT. BNK. 01/24/97 MB FORESTED REC 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.24960110-14 6 MILE MIT. BNK. 01/24/97 HY FORESTED REC 2.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.28960110-14 LEE CO. MIT. BANK 01/24/97 DM MF REC 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.40 0.85960110-14 LEE CO. MIT. BANK 01/24/97 DD MF REC 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.40 0.85960110-14 LEE CO. MIT. BANK 01/24/97 JM MF REC 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.40 0.82960110-14 LEE CO. MIT. BANK 01/24/97 KF MF REC 2.00 3.00 3.00 1.50 2.50 2.50 2.40 0.80960110-14 LEE CO. MIT. BANK 01/24/97 HH MF REC 1.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.40 0.78960110-14 LEE CO. MIT. BANK 01/24/97 SB MF REC 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.75 0.87960110-14 LEE CO. MIT. BANK 01/24/97 MB MF REC 2.50 3.00 3.00 1.50 2.50 2.50 2.40 0.83960110-14 LEE CO. MIT. BANK 01/24/97 HY MF REC 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.50 3.00 0.83
App_F..xls Page 6
G-1
Appendix G - Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System
Introduction
The Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) is a land useclassification system originally developed by the Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT). Its primary purpose is to clarify, in some detail, the land use / cover / formsannotations assigned to various polygons which make up a land use map. This codingsystem is routinely utilized by agencies such as Division of Forestry, Florida Departmentof Environmental Protection, the Water Management Districts, and many otherdepartments, bureaus and universities throughout the state of Florida.
FLUCCS codes specifically for Wetlands (600) are listed below, along with theirspecific description criteria.
610 Wetland Hardwood Forests
Wetland Hardwood Forests are those wetland areas which meet the crown closurerequirements for forestland (i.e., minimum 10 percent closure). To be included inthe Wetland Hardwood Forest category, the stand must be 66 percent or moredominated by wetland hardwood species, either salt or freshwater.
611 Bay Swamps
This category is composed of dominant trees such as loblolly bay, sweetbay, redbay, swamp bay, slash pine and loblolly pine. Large gallberry, fetterbush, waxmyrtle and titi are included in the understory vegetation.
612 Mangrove Swamps
This coastal hardwood community is composed of red and/or black mangrovewhich is pure or predominant. The major associates include white mangrove,buttonwood, cabbage palm and sea grape.
613 Gum Swamps
This forest community is composed of swamp tupelo (blackgum) or water tupelo(tupelogum) which is pure of predominant. Associate species include bald cypressand a great variety of wet site tolerant hardwood species widely variant incomposition.
614 Titi Swamps
This community is composed of often extremely dense stands of black titi andcyrilla which are either pure or predominant species. Major associated speciesinclude bay, cypress, tupelos and a great variety of wetland hardwoods.
G-2
615 Stream and Lake Swamps
This community, often referred to as bottomland or stream hardwoods, is usuallyfound on but not restricted to river, creek and lake flood plain or overflow areas.It is a conglomeration of a wide variety of predominantly hardwood species ofwhich some of the more common components include red maple, river birchwater oak, sweetgum, willows, tupelos, water hickory, bays, water ash andbuttonbush. Associated species include cypress, slash pine, loblolly pine andshortleaf pine.
616 Inland Ponds and Sloughs
These communities are associated with depressions and drainage areas that arenot associated with streams or lakes. One or a combination of the followingspecies will generally be predominant: pond cypress, swamp tupelo, water tupelo,titi or willows.
617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods
This category is reserved for those wetland hardwood communities which arecomposed of a large variety of hardwood species tolerant of hydric conditions yetexhibit an ill defined mixture of species.
620 Wetland Coniferous Forests
Wetland coniferous forests are wetlands, which meet the crown closurerequirements for coniferous forests (i.e., 66 percent closure by conifers) and are aresult of natural generation. These communities are commonly found in theinterior wetlands in such places as river flood plains, bogs, bayheads and sloughs.
621 Cypress
This community is composed of pond cypress or bald cypress which is either pureof predominant. In the cases of pond cypress, common associates are swamptupelo, slash pine and black titi. In the case of bald cypress, common associatesare water tupelo, swamp cottonwood, red maple, American elm, pumpkin ash,Carolina ash, overcup oak and water hickory. Bald cypress may be associatedwith laurel oak, sweetgum and sweetbay on less moist sites, Note that someauthorities do not distinguish between the two varieties of cypress.
622 Pond Pine
This category is composed of pond pine, which is either pure or predominant. Itsmajor associates include sweetbay, loblolly bay, red bay and swamp tupelo.
G-3
623 Atlantic White Cedar
In this community, Atlantic White Cedar is the indicator species although it maynot always be the most abundant. Its common associates include slash pine,cypress, swamp tupelo, sweetbay, red bay, loblolly bay, black titi and red maple.
624 Cypress – Pine – Cabbage Palm
This community includes cypress, pine and/or cabbage palm in combinations inwhich neither species achieves dominance. Although not strictly a wetlandscommunity, it forms a transition between upland and hydric states.
630 Wetland Forested Mixed
This category includes mixed wetland forest communities in which neitherhardwoods nor conifers achieve a 66 percent dominance of the crown canopycomposition.
640 Vegetated Non-Forested Wetlands
Vegetated, non-forested wetlands include marshes and seasonally flooded basinsand meadows. These communities are usually confined to relatively level, low-lying areas. This category does not include areas which have tree cover meet thecrown cover is less that the threshold for forested categories. When the forestcrown cover is less than the threshold for wetland forest or is non-woody, it willbe included in this category. Sawgrass and cattail are the predominant species infreshwater marshes while spartina and needlerush are the predominant species inthe saltwater marsh communities.
641 Freshwater Marshes
The communities included in this category are characterized by having one ormore of the following species predominate:
Sawgrass -Cladium jamaicensisCattail -Typha domingensis
Typha latifolia Typha angustifolia
Arrowhead -Sagittaria sp.Maidencane -Panicum hemitomonButtonbush -Cephalanthus occidentalisCordgrass -Spartina bakeriSwitchgrass -Panicum virgatumBulrush -Scirpus americanus
Scirpus validus Scirpus robustus
G-4
Needlerush -Juncus effususCommon reed -Phragmites communis
Phragmites australisArrowroot -Thalia dealbata
Thalia geniculata
If the community is 66 percent or more dominated by a single species by cover, on of thefollowing level IV classifications will be employed.
6411 Sawgrass
6412 Cattail
6413 Spikerush
6414 Maidencane
6415 Dog fennel and low marsh grasses
6416 Arrowroot
642 Saltwater Marshes
The communities included in this category will be predominated by one or moreof the following species:
Cordgrasses -Spartina alterniflora Spartina cynosuroides Spartina patens Spartina spartinae
Needlerush -Juncus roemerianusSeashore Saltgrass -Distichlis spicataSaltwort -Batis maritimaGlassworts -Salicornia sp.Fringerush -Fimbristylis castaneaSalt Dropseed -Sporobolus virginicusSeaside Daisy -Borrichia frutescensSalt Jointgrass -Paspalum vaginatum
If the community is 66 percent or more dominated by a single species by cover, one ofthe following level IV classifications will be employed.
6421 Cordgrass
6422 Needlerush
G-5
643 Wet Prairie
This classification is composed of dominantly grassy vegetation on wet soils andis usually distinguished from marshes by having less water and shortage herbage.These communities will be predominated by one or more of the following species:
Sawgrass -Cladium jamaicensisMaidencane -Panicum hemitomonCordgrasses -Spartina bakeri
Spartina patensSpikerushes -Eleocharis sp.Beach Rushes -Rhycosphora sp.St. Johns Wort -Hypericum sp.Spiderlily -Hymenocallis palmeriSwamplily -Crinum americanumYellow-eyed Grass -Xyris ambiguaWhitetop Sedge -Dichromena colorata
644 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation
This category of wetland plant species includes both floating vegetation andvegetation, which is, found either partially or completely above the surface of thewater.
6441 Water Lettuce – Pistia stratiotes
6442 Spatterdock – Nuphar sp.
6443 Water Hyacinth – Eichhornia sp.
6444 Duck Weed – Lemna sp.
6445 Water lily - Nymphaeaceae
645 Submergent Aquatic Vegetation
This category of wetland vegetation is composed of those aquatic species orcommunities found growing completely below the surface of the water.
6451 Hydrilla – Hydrilla verticillata
650 Non-Vegetated
Non-vegetated wetlands are those hydric surfaces on which vegetation is foundlacking due to the erosional effects of wind and water transporting the surfacematerial so rapidly that the establishment of plant communities is hindered or the
G-6
fluctuation of the water surface level is such that vegetation cannot becomeestablished. Additionally, submerged or saturated materials often develop toxicconditions of extreme acidity. Tidal flats, shorelines and intermittent ponds arethe main components of this category.
651 Tidal Flats
This category is composed of that portion of the shore environmentprotected by wave action, as in the case of estuaries, comprised primarilyof muds transported by tidal channels. An important characteristic of thetidal flat environment is its alternating tidal cycle of submergence andexposure to the atmosphere.
652 Shorelines
This category is normally defined as the interface between the land massand a water body. Shorelines are formed primarily by physical orbiological agents resulting in environments such as coral reefs and barrierbeaches. The shore is defined as the zone extending from the low tidemark to the farthest point inland to which wave action transports beachmaterials.
653 Intermittent Ponds
This category of wetland is defined as a waterbody which exists for only aportion of the year. It may be referred to as a seasonal waterbody. Itsexistence relies upon water received directly from precipitation, runoff orspring flow.
654 Oyster Bars
